John MacArthur, Jr. Different by Design: Discovering God’s Will for Today’s Man and Woman. Victor, 1996. See here to buy the book.
This book defends a complementarian view of gender against
evangelical feminism. Essentially, John MacArthur believes that married
women’s primary responsibility is in the home. Husbands are to be the
head of the household, but women still contribute their own unique
insight, plus husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the
church, a tall order indeed. MacArthur also interprets the New
Testament’s position to be that only men can have senior leadership
positions in the church, but he also maintains that women can be
deaconesses.
Here are some thoughts and observations:
A. There are some tensions in MacArthur’s book. On the one hand,
MacArthur wants to argue that men and women are different by design. Men
should be leaders in the church because they are more naturally
qualified for that than women are, so churches run more smoothly when
they respect that order. On the other hand, MacArthur acknowledges that
there are women who may be better teachers than men. In those cases, he
argues, women should still submit to the male authorities in the church,
even if they feel that they are more qualified. Similarly, an employee
may be more knowledgeable and talented than his boss, but he still must
submit to his boss for there to be order in the company. MacArthur does
argue that women can find an outlet for their teaching ability, for they
are to teach their children spiritual matters in the home. Still, there
seems to be a tension in that MacArthur believes that men are naturally
more apt for certain responsibilities, yet he also acknowledges that
some women may find themselves to be more apt than men.
B. Another tension concerns marriage and divorce. On the one hand,
MacArthur has a “tough it out” approach. Men are to love their wives,
period, regardless of whether or how much the wives reciprocate. Divorce
is out of the question, with very few exceptions. That is called “dying
to self.” Christians can love, even when it’s difficult, through the
power of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, MacArthur acknowledges that
marriage can be extremely difficult. He talks about why some people may
prefer a single life and acknowledges that as a legitimate desire. He
also refer to I Corinthians 7:15, which states that a Christian is not
bound to a marriage with an unbeliever if the unbeliever leaves, for God
calls Christians to live in peace. MacArthur interprets that to mean
that God wants Christians to have a peaceful life, rather than one of
continuous turmoil, and God recognizes that marriage with an unbeliever
can be tumultuous. But what if two believers are married and find their
marriage to be tumultuous? What about their peace? And should not the
believer married to an unbeliever tough things out and die to self, by
MacArthur’s standards?
C. Overall, MacArthur’s interpretation of New Testament passages
about gender makes sense, from an exegetical standpoint. What that means
is that he shows how individual words and verses make sense within the
larger argument of the passage. In his interpretation of I Corinthians
11, he interprets kephale in vv. 3-4 to mean “head”—-the man is the head
of the woman—-rather than “source,” as many evangelical feminists
interpret it. It is not enough, in my opinion, to show that kephale in
antiquity can mean “source.” If one wants to go with that
interpretation, one must also explain how “source” fits in with the
larger argument that Paul is making in I Corinthians 11. MacArthur
provides a coherent interpretation: Christian feminists in that day were
causing disorder in church services by transgressing what Paul
considered to be their position, so Paul was exhorting them to respect
the male headship that God had established. Similarly, MacArthur offers a
coherent interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-15: women are not to teach
officially in church because God created men first, and Eve was deceived
after she transgressed her husband’s authority. MacArthur provides a
coherent picture of how the pieces can fit together to form a whole. By
contrast, the feminist interpretations that he engages appear to be a
stretch, cutting against the grain of the passage. It is easy to forget
them in reading the biblical passages because they do not go with the
flow of what the passages are saying. I admit that there are many
evangelical feminist books that I have not read, but I am sharing my
impressions based on what I have read.
D. That said, there are things that MacArthur says in this book that
appear to be a stretch. MacArthur has to deal with biblical passages
that seem to indicate that women can have teaching authority among the
people of God: there are prophetesses in both the Old and the New
Testaments (Miriam, Huldah, Philip’s daughters in Acts 21:9), and Paul
in I Corinthians 11:5 accepts women prophesying, provided they do so
with their heads covered. MacArthur says that the prophetesses were not
prophesying in a church setting but outside of it, and he disputes that
Miriam and Huldah had a prophetic ministry: they just prophesied on
occasion, like Hannah and Mary. That seems to cut against the grain of
what the passages are saying. The topic of I Corinthians 11:1-16 appears
to concern what goes on in church services. And Huldah in II Kings
22:14 is a prophetess whom King Josiah specifically consulted for her
prophetic word, which contradicts her being someone who merely
prophesied every now and then. Of course, MacArthur goes the route that
he does because he believes that the Bible must be internally
consistent. He has to deal with passages like I Timothy 2:11-15 and I
Corinthians 14:34-35, which exhort women to be silent in the churches.
Many historical critics would say that these passages reflect
Deutero-Paul, who is more conservative on gender roles than Paul, but
MacArthur cannot go that route, as it contradicts his view on the nature
of Scripture. MacArthur does what he can with what he has.
E. MacArthur offers an interesting interpretation of I Timothy 2:15,
which states that women shall be saved through childbearing, if they
continue in faith, love, and holiness. MacArthur contends that Paul is
not saying that women receive salvation from sin through childbearing,
for people are justified by grace through faith alone. Women are saved,
however, from the stigma attached to the first woman being deceived, for
they have an opportunity to raise godly children. I am ambivalent about
this interpretation, for it seems to me that MacArthur is trying to
reconcile I Timothy 2:15 with his Protestant position on salvation. This
is not to suggest that Deutero-Paul thought women could earn their
salvation through bearing children, for the pastorals maintain that
Christ’s gracious work was necessary for salvation even to occur (see I
Timothy 1:9-11). But what if Deutero-Paul saw salvation as more of a
process: one receives forgiveness, but one still needs to persevere and
live out the Christian life to finally receive eternal life (see I
Timothy 6:12; 2:10-13)? Part of women’s sanctification, in this
scenario, is raising godly children.
F. MacArthur comments on the qualifications for elders and deacons in
the pastoral epistles. He says that these are not qualifications, so
much, for specific tasks. They can be that: you do not want a greedy
deacon embezzling funds, or a lustful bishop chasing women. But the
overall goal is that leaders in the church be solid spiritual examples.
Another consideration is the reputation of the church with outsiders. I
thought about what MacArthur was saying when I was reading about an
acquaintance. This acquaintance attends a conservative church, and he is
being considered for an eldership position. He has admitted to
struggles with same-sex attraction in the past, however, and there was a
season not long ago when he was out of work and publicly questioned the
existence of God. Some in the church do not want him to be an elder
because they believe he fails the qualifications, but others were
comparing him to the Psalmist, who himself questioned God when times
were rough. They were saying that this man, especially, would be able to
minister to people in church who struggle, unlike a person who has had
no spiritual struggles.
This book, like other MacArthur books, is informative. MacArthur
systematically goes through biblical passages, highlighting the nuances
of Greek words to illustrate what the texts mean. He also goes some into
historical background, such as feminist sentiments in ancient
Greco-Roman sources, and concepts of external beauty.
James Bradford Pate's comments on religion, politics, entertainment, books, and life
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Book Write-Up: Sword and Shield, by Holland C. Kirbo
Holland C. Kirbo. Sword and Shield. Illadian, 2018. See here to buy the book.
Sword and Shield is the second book of Holland Kirbo’s “Legends of Aewyr” fantasy series.
This second book takes up where the first one left off. Maal is still a sinister spiritual presence, threatening lands and kingdoms. The “Immortals” are mentoring Lakyn, who demonstrated great power in defeating one of Maal’s underlings. Questions abound about whether Lakyn is the prophesied “Bright One,” since she is not the offspring of Immortals. The romance between Lakyn and Reuel is heating up. Reuel unveils and deals with his past baggage and present apprehensions about his identity and his nature.
This second book has some new elements. There is a “heretical” sect that is challenging what the “Immortals” think they know about themselves and the deities. The Immortals embrace this sect’s help against Maal yet disdain its monotheistic doctrine. There is a traitor to Maal, who fears going back to Hael. Mechanics of possession are discussed, as some spirits enter people to get information, not to possess them.
A lot goes on in this book, but its prose is far from scattered, for it is orderly. There are intriguing supernatural elements of this book, such as visions and occasional flashbacks to the primeval past. These add a tone of depth to the book, as if a mystery is being uncovered, like an onion.
The book is Christian fantasy and alludes to elements of the Christian story, such as the fall of Lucifer. Yet, other elements are added to the story. Traditional Christian doctrine is not entirely challenged by these additions, for they teach lessons about relying on God’s wisdom. At the same time, there appears to be a notion that a “Kyriel,” who is distinct from Yeshua, is a semi-divine being. That may not mesh as neatly with traditional Christian doctrine, but it will be interesting to see where Kirbo goes with that.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the author. My review is honest.
Sword and Shield is the second book of Holland Kirbo’s “Legends of Aewyr” fantasy series.
This second book takes up where the first one left off. Maal is still a sinister spiritual presence, threatening lands and kingdoms. The “Immortals” are mentoring Lakyn, who demonstrated great power in defeating one of Maal’s underlings. Questions abound about whether Lakyn is the prophesied “Bright One,” since she is not the offspring of Immortals. The romance between Lakyn and Reuel is heating up. Reuel unveils and deals with his past baggage and present apprehensions about his identity and his nature.
This second book has some new elements. There is a “heretical” sect that is challenging what the “Immortals” think they know about themselves and the deities. The Immortals embrace this sect’s help against Maal yet disdain its monotheistic doctrine. There is a traitor to Maal, who fears going back to Hael. Mechanics of possession are discussed, as some spirits enter people to get information, not to possess them.
A lot goes on in this book, but its prose is far from scattered, for it is orderly. There are intriguing supernatural elements of this book, such as visions and occasional flashbacks to the primeval past. These add a tone of depth to the book, as if a mystery is being uncovered, like an onion.
The book is Christian fantasy and alludes to elements of the Christian story, such as the fall of Lucifer. Yet, other elements are added to the story. Traditional Christian doctrine is not entirely challenged by these additions, for they teach lessons about relying on God’s wisdom. At the same time, there appears to be a notion that a “Kyriel,” who is distinct from Yeshua, is a semi-divine being. That may not mesh as neatly with traditional Christian doctrine, but it will be interesting to see where Kirbo goes with that.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the author. My review is honest.
Book Write-Up: The Emperor’s Doom, by R.A. Denny
R.A. Denny. The Emperor’s Doom (Tales of Tzoladia, Book 5). 2018. See here to purchase the book.
The Emperor’s Doom is the final book of R.A. Denny’s “Tales of Tzoladia” Christian fantasy series.
The young cat-rider Metlan now reigns as emperor of Tzoladia, having supplanted the evil Zoltov. A plague spreads across the land, taking many lives. And three heroes, plus Metlan, are curious about the treasure to which three seals are prophesied to lead.
The political element is the best part of this book. Metlan tries to appease different factions, and different deities, but staunch followers of the god Adon feel that he should honor Adon alone and get rid of the religions that sacrifice humans. Meanwhile, Metlan deals with his own heritage, since his beloved mother was a worshiper of Adon. Metlan makes a striking political decision, with surprising results.
Metlan is a complicated character. He continually remembers his humble roots, so he does not put on the airs that Zoltov did. Yet, he can be a despot, and he can also be greedy. The end of the book shows where he ends up, in terms of his character. The ending, in this respect, seems somewhat abrupt, but perhaps a rereading of the book would demonstrate hints throughout as to why he ended up as he did.
In terms of spiritual lessons, a paramount one concerns the nature of true treasure.
The end of the book reminds me of the end of the Hobbit (part 3) and Two Towers movies: a force arises from somewhere that enables good to triumph.
I am privileged to have read this series.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the author. My review is honest.
The Emperor’s Doom is the final book of R.A. Denny’s “Tales of Tzoladia” Christian fantasy series.
The young cat-rider Metlan now reigns as emperor of Tzoladia, having supplanted the evil Zoltov. A plague spreads across the land, taking many lives. And three heroes, plus Metlan, are curious about the treasure to which three seals are prophesied to lead.
The political element is the best part of this book. Metlan tries to appease different factions, and different deities, but staunch followers of the god Adon feel that he should honor Adon alone and get rid of the religions that sacrifice humans. Meanwhile, Metlan deals with his own heritage, since his beloved mother was a worshiper of Adon. Metlan makes a striking political decision, with surprising results.
Metlan is a complicated character. He continually remembers his humble roots, so he does not put on the airs that Zoltov did. Yet, he can be a despot, and he can also be greedy. The end of the book shows where he ends up, in terms of his character. The ending, in this respect, seems somewhat abrupt, but perhaps a rereading of the book would demonstrate hints throughout as to why he ended up as he did.
In terms of spiritual lessons, a paramount one concerns the nature of true treasure.
The end of the book reminds me of the end of the Hobbit (part 3) and Two Towers movies: a force arises from somewhere that enables good to triumph.
I am privileged to have read this series.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the author. My review is honest.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Church Write-Up: Heaven and the Resurrected; Gideons
Here are some items from last Sunday’s church service:
A. The youth pastor talked about heaven. What is heaven like? Two people were saying that heaven had rivers of chocolate milk. The youth pastor responded that there must be more to heaven than that. One of the people, playing the part of a person in heaven talking to someone else in heaven, said that God let her sit on his throne. When she asked God about her sins, God replied that he does not remember them. The best thing about heaven is being with our best friend God forever. The youth pastor referred to some passage about the saints sitting on Christ’s throne—-maybe it was Revelation 3:21—-to support the idea that Christ will let us sit on his throne in heaven. What the passage may mean, though, is not literal but rather relates to the saints reigning with Christ over the cosmos (Matthew 19:28; II Timothy 2:12; Revelation 20:6): God the Father gave Christ that dominion, and Christ shares it with believers.
B. The pastor opened his sermon with a story about his late father-in-law. The father-in-law was an evangelist. People used to joke that he could start a church in a donut shop. He had a winsome personality and helped revive a struggling church. When he was a pastor, he would put a fork in his shirt pocket and go door-to-door. He would introduce himself as the pastor of the church and ask if he could come in and visit and if they could give him a piece of pie. They usually let him in, and, in those days, people had pies in the house. I respect people with that gift, even though I lack it. As someone said in the Sunday school class, though, not all Christians are called to be evangelists, but they are called to be witnesses, testifying to their belief that they are broken in a broken world, that Christ died for their sins, and that they have the hope of eternal life.
C. The pastor talked about how heaven is a nebulous concept. A while back, he was asking teens what they looked forward to in heaven, but they were more interested in getting their driver’s license. The pastor said that our resurrection bodies will likely be physical, for Jesus’s was. The pastor also responded to the cliche that “Whoever dies with the most toys wins” by asking, “Wins what?” Throughout the sermon, I was reminded of a book that I am reading: K.J. Soze’s The Message for the Last Days. Soze is going through different Christian beliefs about the afterlife. One view is that souls go to heaven and receive spirit bodies while there. Another view sees heaven as the intermediate state between death and the resurrection: the soul goes to heaven temporarily but will be reunited with its body at the resurrection, at Christ’s second coming. I thought that the latter view was the prevalent one within Christendom, but what intrigues me is that many Christians seem to conflate Christians in heaven after death with the resurrection from the dead. When Jesus in Matthew 22:31-32 (and synoptic parallels) defends the resurrection by saying that God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and God is God of the living, not the dead, many Christians say that Jesus is claiming the souls of the patriarchs are in heaven, even though Jesus explicitly relates his point to the resurrection from the dead, which is not a present but an end-time event.
D. Something else that I was thinking about was Jesus’s claim in Matthew 22:30 that the resurrected will be like angels in heaven and will not marry or be given in marriage. Does this go against them being physical beings in the resurrection? Some deny that Jesus is saying the resurrected will be exactly like angels in every detail but merely is saying they will be like angels in terms of not marrying or giving in marriage. I am not entirely convinced by this, though, because Jesus seems to be claiming that the resurrected will not marry or give in marriage because they will be like the angels in heaven: they will be like angels in heaven, and something about that (i.e., similarity in body, or similarity in function or role?) ensures that they will not marry or be given in marriage. It could be that not marrying is the only characteristic the resurrected will share with angels, but then the question would be why. Is it because humans will no longer have to reproduce since, like angels, they will live forever?
E. The Sunday school class got into a variety of issues: apostasy, apologetics, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, religious diversity in public schools, sharing one’s faith when one asks, evolution and intelligent design, and transexuality. A representative from the Gideons was sharing with us. He talked some about his own faith journey. He used to be involved in Transcendental Meditation, but he was seeking God. He had problems with the book of Acts, wondering if he could trust its historicity, and a Christian told him that he either believed or he did not, and there must be some room for faith. Another Christian challenged him to make a dare to God: “reveal yourself to me in a month, or I am not coming back.” Well, I am not entirely sure how that worked, but he did come back, and he kept coming back. He talked about distributing Bibles at public schools: he is allowed to distribute them off-campus, and some security guards try to discourage kids from taking them, but that only makes the kids want them more! Dealing with hostility is more fruitful than dealing with indifference, he related. He also shared stories about the distribution of Bibles abroad: an ugly dog snatched a Gideon’s Bible from a representative, and it found its way into the hands of a prominent medicine man, who was convicted to abandon witchcraft because he did not want to go to hell.
F. The discussion about apostasy intrigued me. The Gideon apparently knows people who left the faith even though they believed it from childhood. Some of his children are atheists or agnostics. He had an experiential and anecdotal basis for his faith, as I share in (E.), but also some apologetic basis (i.e., design, arguments for Jesus's resurrection being historical). Still, he said that he can understand if not everyone finds Simon Greenleaf's arguments to be convincing. I cannot say that I agreed with everything people were saying, but I did not want to argue and alienate myself from others or disturb the religious flow of the gathering. One person commented that faith and devotions are things that people have to work on daily to keep them up. I realize that much more is going on in apostasy----intellectual doubts, feeling as if leaving religion makes one a better person, etc.----but that that person said still resonated with me. Being a Christian is like a marriage: one needs to work on it.
A. The youth pastor talked about heaven. What is heaven like? Two people were saying that heaven had rivers of chocolate milk. The youth pastor responded that there must be more to heaven than that. One of the people, playing the part of a person in heaven talking to someone else in heaven, said that God let her sit on his throne. When she asked God about her sins, God replied that he does not remember them. The best thing about heaven is being with our best friend God forever. The youth pastor referred to some passage about the saints sitting on Christ’s throne—-maybe it was Revelation 3:21—-to support the idea that Christ will let us sit on his throne in heaven. What the passage may mean, though, is not literal but rather relates to the saints reigning with Christ over the cosmos (Matthew 19:28; II Timothy 2:12; Revelation 20:6): God the Father gave Christ that dominion, and Christ shares it with believers.
B. The pastor opened his sermon with a story about his late father-in-law. The father-in-law was an evangelist. People used to joke that he could start a church in a donut shop. He had a winsome personality and helped revive a struggling church. When he was a pastor, he would put a fork in his shirt pocket and go door-to-door. He would introduce himself as the pastor of the church and ask if he could come in and visit and if they could give him a piece of pie. They usually let him in, and, in those days, people had pies in the house. I respect people with that gift, even though I lack it. As someone said in the Sunday school class, though, not all Christians are called to be evangelists, but they are called to be witnesses, testifying to their belief that they are broken in a broken world, that Christ died for their sins, and that they have the hope of eternal life.
C. The pastor talked about how heaven is a nebulous concept. A while back, he was asking teens what they looked forward to in heaven, but they were more interested in getting their driver’s license. The pastor said that our resurrection bodies will likely be physical, for Jesus’s was. The pastor also responded to the cliche that “Whoever dies with the most toys wins” by asking, “Wins what?” Throughout the sermon, I was reminded of a book that I am reading: K.J. Soze’s The Message for the Last Days. Soze is going through different Christian beliefs about the afterlife. One view is that souls go to heaven and receive spirit bodies while there. Another view sees heaven as the intermediate state between death and the resurrection: the soul goes to heaven temporarily but will be reunited with its body at the resurrection, at Christ’s second coming. I thought that the latter view was the prevalent one within Christendom, but what intrigues me is that many Christians seem to conflate Christians in heaven after death with the resurrection from the dead. When Jesus in Matthew 22:31-32 (and synoptic parallels) defends the resurrection by saying that God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and God is God of the living, not the dead, many Christians say that Jesus is claiming the souls of the patriarchs are in heaven, even though Jesus explicitly relates his point to the resurrection from the dead, which is not a present but an end-time event.
D. Something else that I was thinking about was Jesus’s claim in Matthew 22:30 that the resurrected will be like angels in heaven and will not marry or be given in marriage. Does this go against them being physical beings in the resurrection? Some deny that Jesus is saying the resurrected will be exactly like angels in every detail but merely is saying they will be like angels in terms of not marrying or giving in marriage. I am not entirely convinced by this, though, because Jesus seems to be claiming that the resurrected will not marry or give in marriage because they will be like the angels in heaven: they will be like angels in heaven, and something about that (i.e., similarity in body, or similarity in function or role?) ensures that they will not marry or be given in marriage. It could be that not marrying is the only characteristic the resurrected will share with angels, but then the question would be why. Is it because humans will no longer have to reproduce since, like angels, they will live forever?
E. The Sunday school class got into a variety of issues: apostasy, apologetics, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, religious diversity in public schools, sharing one’s faith when one asks, evolution and intelligent design, and transexuality. A representative from the Gideons was sharing with us. He talked some about his own faith journey. He used to be involved in Transcendental Meditation, but he was seeking God. He had problems with the book of Acts, wondering if he could trust its historicity, and a Christian told him that he either believed or he did not, and there must be some room for faith. Another Christian challenged him to make a dare to God: “reveal yourself to me in a month, or I am not coming back.” Well, I am not entirely sure how that worked, but he did come back, and he kept coming back. He talked about distributing Bibles at public schools: he is allowed to distribute them off-campus, and some security guards try to discourage kids from taking them, but that only makes the kids want them more! Dealing with hostility is more fruitful than dealing with indifference, he related. He also shared stories about the distribution of Bibles abroad: an ugly dog snatched a Gideon’s Bible from a representative, and it found its way into the hands of a prominent medicine man, who was convicted to abandon witchcraft because he did not want to go to hell.
F. The discussion about apostasy intrigued me. The Gideon apparently knows people who left the faith even though they believed it from childhood. Some of his children are atheists or agnostics. He had an experiential and anecdotal basis for his faith, as I share in (E.), but also some apologetic basis (i.e., design, arguments for Jesus's resurrection being historical). Still, he said that he can understand if not everyone finds Simon Greenleaf's arguments to be convincing. I cannot say that I agreed with everything people were saying, but I did not want to argue and alienate myself from others or disturb the religious flow of the gathering. One person commented that faith and devotions are things that people have to work on daily to keep them up. I realize that much more is going on in apostasy----intellectual doubts, feeling as if leaving religion makes one a better person, etc.----but that that person said still resonated with me. Being a Christian is like a marriage: one needs to work on it.
Monday, August 26, 2019
Book Write-Up: Christ Is Yours, by Eric Rivera
Eric Rivera. Christ Is Yours: The Assurance of Salvation in the Puritan Theology of William Gouge. Lexham, 2019. See here to purchase the book.
William Gouge (1575-1653) was an English Puritan clergyman and author. In Christ Is Yours, Eric Rivera discusses Gouge’s views on the Christian’s assurance that he or she is saved.
Some thoughts and observations:
A. From this book, it seems to me that Gouge’s view on assurance was that he strongly advocated that Christians trust in the divine promise that they are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, yet he did not do away with subjective grounds of assurance, namely, a holy and sanctified life. Gouge also held that regular prayer and confession of sin could strengthen a believer’s assurance. Rivera’s discussion reminded me of something a Christian told me years ago: that, the longer you are walking on the right path, the greater becomes your assurance that you are on the right path. I am ambivalent about this sort of view. On the one hand, part of me thinks that including any subjective grounds of assurance in the equation undermines assurance, since can I seriously look at my life and conclude that it is holy? We are all flawed, so how flawed do we have to be before we can conclude that we are not truly saved? On the other hand, Christianity indeed is a walk and a relationship, not just a moment of decision, so it makes sense that one would develop and become stronger in assurance as one grows in one’s walk with the Lord, making use of the means of grace.
B. Related to (A.), a question in my mind is how well Gouge holds the tensions in his thought together. On assurance, he does so fairly well. When he tries to reconcile God’s continuing forgiveness of sin with the forgiveness of sins that takes place at justification, he does not do as well. It seemed to me like he was saying that Christians need to mollify God’s wrath, then backs away from that at the realization that Christians are no longer under God’s wrath due to justification.
C. The book gets into other interesting details. There is Gouge’s life, with makes me marvel at his ability to cope with so much pain with faith and productivity. There are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of his renowned, mammoth commentary on Hebrews, which I found online. There is the story of the Christian who left the faith under Turkish Muslim persecution, then returned, and Gouge’s sermon about that. There was the Puritan association of morning devotions with the morning sacrifices of the Torah. There are the beliefs about the millennium in those days, as King James I actually felt politically threatened by premilliennial beliefs. Why, I am not entirely clear, since the idea was that Jesus would rule the earth during the millennium, not some other human ruler.
Overall, this is an engaging book to read, although parts of it were repetitive of the conventional Christian spiel. Rivera also effectively summarized the main points in the conclusion.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
William Gouge (1575-1653) was an English Puritan clergyman and author. In Christ Is Yours, Eric Rivera discusses Gouge’s views on the Christian’s assurance that he or she is saved.
Some thoughts and observations:
A. From this book, it seems to me that Gouge’s view on assurance was that he strongly advocated that Christians trust in the divine promise that they are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, yet he did not do away with subjective grounds of assurance, namely, a holy and sanctified life. Gouge also held that regular prayer and confession of sin could strengthen a believer’s assurance. Rivera’s discussion reminded me of something a Christian told me years ago: that, the longer you are walking on the right path, the greater becomes your assurance that you are on the right path. I am ambivalent about this sort of view. On the one hand, part of me thinks that including any subjective grounds of assurance in the equation undermines assurance, since can I seriously look at my life and conclude that it is holy? We are all flawed, so how flawed do we have to be before we can conclude that we are not truly saved? On the other hand, Christianity indeed is a walk and a relationship, not just a moment of decision, so it makes sense that one would develop and become stronger in assurance as one grows in one’s walk with the Lord, making use of the means of grace.
B. Related to (A.), a question in my mind is how well Gouge holds the tensions in his thought together. On assurance, he does so fairly well. When he tries to reconcile God’s continuing forgiveness of sin with the forgiveness of sins that takes place at justification, he does not do as well. It seemed to me like he was saying that Christians need to mollify God’s wrath, then backs away from that at the realization that Christians are no longer under God’s wrath due to justification.
C. The book gets into other interesting details. There is Gouge’s life, with makes me marvel at his ability to cope with so much pain with faith and productivity. There are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of his renowned, mammoth commentary on Hebrews, which I found online. There is the story of the Christian who left the faith under Turkish Muslim persecution, then returned, and Gouge’s sermon about that. There was the Puritan association of morning devotions with the morning sacrifices of the Torah. There are the beliefs about the millennium in those days, as King James I actually felt politically threatened by premilliennial beliefs. Why, I am not entirely clear, since the idea was that Jesus would rule the earth during the millennium, not some other human ruler.
Overall, this is an engaging book to read, although parts of it were repetitive of the conventional Christian spiel. Rivera also effectively summarized the main points in the conclusion.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Church Write-Up: John 20:23 and Personal Forgiveness/Unforgiveness; Romania
Here are some items from the church service that I attended last Sunday:
A. The service itself interacted with John 20:23: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” The youth pastor and the pastor both spoke of this in the context of believers carrying forgiveness to others; in some cases, the pastor said, believers may need to withhold forgiveness towards people who are unrepentant in order to show them how destructive and serious sin is. The goal is to encourage them to repent. The pastor and the youth pastor seemed to be interpreting the forgiveness as personal forgiveness: believers forgive others for sins against them personally. Protestant commentaries, however, tend to interpret John 20:23 in light of the church carrying the Gospel. The church carries and preaches the Gospel, which has the power to bring forgiveness towards those who accept it and unforgiveness to those who reject it. Roman Catholicism holds that it possesses the authority to bring people forgiveness and unforgiveness: forgiveness through penance, and unforgiveness through excommunication.
The pastor probably accepts the Protestant interpretation, but he chose to focus on personal forgiveness and unforgiveness. What he said about unforgiveness stood out to me, though, since Matthew 18, a chapter that talks about forgiveness, binding and loosing on earth and in heaven, and church discipline, essentially presents the church withholding forgiveness if a person refuses to repent after two stages of confrontation. Can individual Christians do this, too, towards people who refuse to repent for sins against them? In this scenario, Christians would probably be expected to confront those who sin against them, to give them the opportunity to repent, and to open the door towards reconciliation. That is different from bearing a grudge in secret, avoiding the person, and expecting the person magically to figure out that he or she did something wrong. I do not think that Christians are required to confront each and every offense, however, for 1 Peter 4:8 states that love covers a multitude of sins, Proverbs 19:11 praises overlooking an offense, and Proverbs 9:8 discourages people to rebuke mockers.
I am thinking through this. I fail often in it, since I am not a confrontational person, I do not want to appear vulnerable to others and to give them the satisfaction of knowing that they hurt me, I simply do not want a sustained relationship with certain people, and, in general, I dispute the idea that everyone should be friends. Some personalities just conflict.
B. At Sunday school, two ladies spoke to us about their mission trip to Romania. They worked at a camp for orphans. Some have autism. Some of the orphans have given their bodies to adults sexually in order to get food. Some of them are as old as 21, since they are still in school, and Romania allows orphans to receive care if they are in school, whereas the U.S. boots them out at age 18. There are rivalries among the orphans, and, if a bullied orphan tells the adult and receives comfort, that orphan will probably be bullied even more by the bullies. One lady there, who attends our church, was generally quiet, but she was adept at knowing Bible verses and putting together a Bible study right on the spot. After camp, for the rest of the summer, the orphans are medicated and sleep, since their supervisors see that as a way to keep them under control.
A. The service itself interacted with John 20:23: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” The youth pastor and the pastor both spoke of this in the context of believers carrying forgiveness to others; in some cases, the pastor said, believers may need to withhold forgiveness towards people who are unrepentant in order to show them how destructive and serious sin is. The goal is to encourage them to repent. The pastor and the youth pastor seemed to be interpreting the forgiveness as personal forgiveness: believers forgive others for sins against them personally. Protestant commentaries, however, tend to interpret John 20:23 in light of the church carrying the Gospel. The church carries and preaches the Gospel, which has the power to bring forgiveness towards those who accept it and unforgiveness to those who reject it. Roman Catholicism holds that it possesses the authority to bring people forgiveness and unforgiveness: forgiveness through penance, and unforgiveness through excommunication.
The pastor probably accepts the Protestant interpretation, but he chose to focus on personal forgiveness and unforgiveness. What he said about unforgiveness stood out to me, though, since Matthew 18, a chapter that talks about forgiveness, binding and loosing on earth and in heaven, and church discipline, essentially presents the church withholding forgiveness if a person refuses to repent after two stages of confrontation. Can individual Christians do this, too, towards people who refuse to repent for sins against them? In this scenario, Christians would probably be expected to confront those who sin against them, to give them the opportunity to repent, and to open the door towards reconciliation. That is different from bearing a grudge in secret, avoiding the person, and expecting the person magically to figure out that he or she did something wrong. I do not think that Christians are required to confront each and every offense, however, for 1 Peter 4:8 states that love covers a multitude of sins, Proverbs 19:11 praises overlooking an offense, and Proverbs 9:8 discourages people to rebuke mockers.
I am thinking through this. I fail often in it, since I am not a confrontational person, I do not want to appear vulnerable to others and to give them the satisfaction of knowing that they hurt me, I simply do not want a sustained relationship with certain people, and, in general, I dispute the idea that everyone should be friends. Some personalities just conflict.
B. At Sunday school, two ladies spoke to us about their mission trip to Romania. They worked at a camp for orphans. Some have autism. Some of the orphans have given their bodies to adults sexually in order to get food. Some of them are as old as 21, since they are still in school, and Romania allows orphans to receive care if they are in school, whereas the U.S. boots them out at age 18. There are rivalries among the orphans, and, if a bullied orphan tells the adult and receives comfort, that orphan will probably be bullied even more by the bullies. One lady there, who attends our church, was generally quiet, but she was adept at knowing Bible verses and putting together a Bible study right on the spot. After camp, for the rest of the summer, the orphans are medicated and sleep, since their supervisors see that as a way to keep them under control.
Monday, August 19, 2019
Book Write-Up: Hands Off My Gun, by Dana Loesch
Dana Loesch. Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America. Center Street, 2014. See here to purchase the book.
Dana Loesch is a conservative pundit and has served as a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. I first learned about her on account of a controversial comment she made after a mass shooting. When I listened to her on The Federalist Radio Hour, she impressed me because she seemed to know a lot about guns and the laws regulating them. Thus, I decided to read this book.
Here are some thoughts:
A. The book contained some of the usual talking points that I have heard before: mass shootings occur in places that have strict gun control; the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The book is helpful, though, because it backs up those arguments with statistics, showing that crime has gone down when more people are armed.
B. The book is especially informative about the history of the Second Amendment. Loesch draws from primary quotes and historical narrative to argue that the founders wanted people to be armed, both for their own safety and to protect freedom from a potentially tyrannous government. She also discusses how gun control has been used to disarm minorities. Many Second Amendment activists refer to the “black codes” of the Reconstruction era that disarmed free slaves, but Loesch’s discussion goes beyond merely mentioning that. She talks about how southern states prior to the Civil War sought to undermine the Second Amendment rights of free slaves by declaring that they were non-citizens. She narrates that free slaves during Reconstruction successfully protected themselves from white racists because they were armed, and this is what motivated the white establishment’s attempts to disarm them. She also discusses the laws that southern states passed to make firearm ownership difficult, if not impossible, for African-Americans, while permitting rich whites to own firearms. Then she talks about how gun control laws of the late 1960’s sought to suppress firearm ownership among African-Americans, due to riots and crime. Later in the book, she contends that controversial “stand your ground” laws have largely benefited African-Americans by enabling them to protect themselves.
C. Loesch’s discussion that I talk about in (B.) would have been stronger had she documented the sources for the primary quotes, though she does at least refer to specific sections of the Federalist Papers where framers support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Her discussion on race could have been stronger, too, had she talked about the Mulford Act of the 1960’s, a California law that banned the carrying of loaded firearms in public. This law was designed to suppress the Black Panthers, and it was supported by the National Rifle Association and signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. Loesch is not necessarily dedicated to making Ronald Reagan look good, for she argues at one point in the book that, just because Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill, that does not make it right. Discussing the Mulford Act would have strengthened the book, however, by showing that attempts to disarm people has been done by the right, not just by the left. The left, of course, receives a heavy amount of criticism in this book.
D. Loesch makes a convincing case that people, especially women, can find guns to be an effective way to protect themselves. The cops do not always arrive on time, after all! Her arguments against certain gun control measures, however, were a bit lacking. Why would it be so wrong, for example, to require people to register their firearms? They are still allowed to keep their firearms, in that scenario. My impression is that one of Loesch’s problems is that gun control poses a major inconvenience on regions that especially value guns, for hunting and self-protection. Should a father have to go through a bunch of legal rigamarole to give a gun to his son?
E. A point that Loesch repeatedly makes is that there are laws that are already on the books. There are already background checks, even at gun shows. Certain criminals are not allowed to own guns. People already are prohibited to own machine guns. But Loesch also seems to think that there are too many laws that are on the books, and that keeping and bearing arms, even in public, is a God-given right. She says at one point, in addressing mass shootings, that freedom entails the risk that people will not necessarily use their freedom in the right way.
F. Loesch argues that the left wants to ban handguns, period. She refers to comments by Barack Obama early in his political career and by Rosie O’Donnell to that effect, and she argues that Michael Bloomberg essentially believes that. In a speech about gun control that President Obama gave on January 5, 2016, however, Obama denies that he supports banning all guns. Rather, he seeks to strengthen background checks, since there are gun purchases that fall through the cracks. This book was published in 2014, but it could have been stronger had Loesch argued more against what the left considers to be “common sense” gun laws.
G. An argument that Loesch repeatedly makes is that the left does not understand guns. The AR-15, for instance, is not a machine gun but fires one bullet at a time, like a lot of guns do. “Assault weapons” are not machine guns, either, but merely look like machine guns. I cannot get into a debate with Loesch about guns, since I know so little about them. I doubt, though, that she has fully engaged what the left actually says about the types of guns that it wants to ban. The guns that they want to ban may be more potent than Loesch implies. According to a June 16, 2016 NBC news article by Tony Dokoupil, the AR-15 is controversial on account of its “quick reload capabilities,” and the family of Eugene Stoner, the inventor of the AR-15, deny that Stoner intended the gun for civilian use.
H. Loesch argues that murder rates, even murder by guns, are higher in countries and states that have strict gun control. She argues that criminals are not going to obey gun laws, anyway, for they are criminals. Still, a question that should be addressed is where these guns are coming from in countries and states that have strict gun control. Loesch says the “black market,” but where is the black market getting those guns? From places with loose gun control laws? From underground manufacture?
I. Loesch recoils from the idea that she, an experienced gun user, would have to take a beginner’s class on guns in order to get a concealed-carry permit. She makes a valid point. There are people who have grown up with guns, and it would be condescending to treat them as little kids. At the same time, I wonder if there is a way to get around that problem. Perhaps waive the requirement that people take a class, if they can take a test or demonstrate that they already know the material.
J. Loesch at many points seems to try to be like Ann Coulter, using acerbic wit to criticize liberals. Unlike Coulter’s wit, however, Loesh’s falls flat.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
Dana Loesch is a conservative pundit and has served as a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. I first learned about her on account of a controversial comment she made after a mass shooting. When I listened to her on The Federalist Radio Hour, she impressed me because she seemed to know a lot about guns and the laws regulating them. Thus, I decided to read this book.
Here are some thoughts:
A. The book contained some of the usual talking points that I have heard before: mass shootings occur in places that have strict gun control; the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The book is helpful, though, because it backs up those arguments with statistics, showing that crime has gone down when more people are armed.
B. The book is especially informative about the history of the Second Amendment. Loesch draws from primary quotes and historical narrative to argue that the founders wanted people to be armed, both for their own safety and to protect freedom from a potentially tyrannous government. She also discusses how gun control has been used to disarm minorities. Many Second Amendment activists refer to the “black codes” of the Reconstruction era that disarmed free slaves, but Loesch’s discussion goes beyond merely mentioning that. She talks about how southern states prior to the Civil War sought to undermine the Second Amendment rights of free slaves by declaring that they were non-citizens. She narrates that free slaves during Reconstruction successfully protected themselves from white racists because they were armed, and this is what motivated the white establishment’s attempts to disarm them. She also discusses the laws that southern states passed to make firearm ownership difficult, if not impossible, for African-Americans, while permitting rich whites to own firearms. Then she talks about how gun control laws of the late 1960’s sought to suppress firearm ownership among African-Americans, due to riots and crime. Later in the book, she contends that controversial “stand your ground” laws have largely benefited African-Americans by enabling them to protect themselves.
C. Loesch’s discussion that I talk about in (B.) would have been stronger had she documented the sources for the primary quotes, though she does at least refer to specific sections of the Federalist Papers where framers support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Her discussion on race could have been stronger, too, had she talked about the Mulford Act of the 1960’s, a California law that banned the carrying of loaded firearms in public. This law was designed to suppress the Black Panthers, and it was supported by the National Rifle Association and signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. Loesch is not necessarily dedicated to making Ronald Reagan look good, for she argues at one point in the book that, just because Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill, that does not make it right. Discussing the Mulford Act would have strengthened the book, however, by showing that attempts to disarm people has been done by the right, not just by the left. The left, of course, receives a heavy amount of criticism in this book.
D. Loesch makes a convincing case that people, especially women, can find guns to be an effective way to protect themselves. The cops do not always arrive on time, after all! Her arguments against certain gun control measures, however, were a bit lacking. Why would it be so wrong, for example, to require people to register their firearms? They are still allowed to keep their firearms, in that scenario. My impression is that one of Loesch’s problems is that gun control poses a major inconvenience on regions that especially value guns, for hunting and self-protection. Should a father have to go through a bunch of legal rigamarole to give a gun to his son?
E. A point that Loesch repeatedly makes is that there are laws that are already on the books. There are already background checks, even at gun shows. Certain criminals are not allowed to own guns. People already are prohibited to own machine guns. But Loesch also seems to think that there are too many laws that are on the books, and that keeping and bearing arms, even in public, is a God-given right. She says at one point, in addressing mass shootings, that freedom entails the risk that people will not necessarily use their freedom in the right way.
F. Loesch argues that the left wants to ban handguns, period. She refers to comments by Barack Obama early in his political career and by Rosie O’Donnell to that effect, and she argues that Michael Bloomberg essentially believes that. In a speech about gun control that President Obama gave on January 5, 2016, however, Obama denies that he supports banning all guns. Rather, he seeks to strengthen background checks, since there are gun purchases that fall through the cracks. This book was published in 2014, but it could have been stronger had Loesch argued more against what the left considers to be “common sense” gun laws.
G. An argument that Loesch repeatedly makes is that the left does not understand guns. The AR-15, for instance, is not a machine gun but fires one bullet at a time, like a lot of guns do. “Assault weapons” are not machine guns, either, but merely look like machine guns. I cannot get into a debate with Loesch about guns, since I know so little about them. I doubt, though, that she has fully engaged what the left actually says about the types of guns that it wants to ban. The guns that they want to ban may be more potent than Loesch implies. According to a June 16, 2016 NBC news article by Tony Dokoupil, the AR-15 is controversial on account of its “quick reload capabilities,” and the family of Eugene Stoner, the inventor of the AR-15, deny that Stoner intended the gun for civilian use.
H. Loesch argues that murder rates, even murder by guns, are higher in countries and states that have strict gun control. She argues that criminals are not going to obey gun laws, anyway, for they are criminals. Still, a question that should be addressed is where these guns are coming from in countries and states that have strict gun control. Loesch says the “black market,” but where is the black market getting those guns? From places with loose gun control laws? From underground manufacture?
I. Loesch recoils from the idea that she, an experienced gun user, would have to take a beginner’s class on guns in order to get a concealed-carry permit. She makes a valid point. There are people who have grown up with guns, and it would be condescending to treat them as little kids. At the same time, I wonder if there is a way to get around that problem. Perhaps waive the requirement that people take a class, if they can take a test or demonstrate that they already know the material.
J. Loesch at many points seems to try to be like Ann Coulter, using acerbic wit to criticize liberals. Unlike Coulter’s wit, however, Loesh’s falls flat.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Church Write-Up: “I Believe in the Holy Spirit…”
At church last Sunday, we continued our series on the Apostle’s Creed. The theme was “I believe in the Holy Spirit.”
The youth pastor talked about how the Holy Spirit empowers and strengthens people for Christian service. You know the times when you are sharing the Gospel, and you are not entirely sure how the words are coming out of your mouth? That is the Holy Spirit. The youth pastor most likely was not saying that the Spirit possesses believers, but rather that the believer is caught up in something beyond himself or herself. Something is working on the inside and bringing what is on the inside to the outside. I cannot say that this has happened to me, as far as I can recall. It is awkward for me to try to sell any belief to another person, including Christianity. In the times that I have been “bold,” I did not feel authentic. I was trying to obey some command to witness, which felt forced and artificial, or I was seeking to bring attention to myself by being controversial. When the latter was the case, being the people-pleaser that I am, I could easily find myself compromising my Christian beliefs to make other people like me. While I have not experienced what the youth pastor was talking about, I can envision it as an experience.
The pastor then preached about the Holy Spirit. His main text was Ezekiel 37, which is about the valley of dry bones. God asked Ezekiel if those bones could live. According to the pastor, Ezekiel was caught in a dilemma. He didn’t want to say “no” because that would indicate that he had no faith. But he did not want to be presumptuous and answer “yes,” for, on their own, the bones could not live. Ezekiel left the answer to God by saying that God knows.
The pastor also said that the Holy Spirit is rather nebulous to us. The Father and the Son are expressed in personal and relatable terms: Father and Son. The Son even has a name, “Jesus.” If the Spirit had a name, such as “Bob,” perhaps we would relate to him better. And yet, even though the Spirit is arguably the most nebulous, hard-to-grasp member of the Trinity, he is relationally close to us. The same Hebrew term for Spirit is also the term for “breath,” indicating that the Spirit is as close to us and as intimate with us as our own breath. And, when we are exhausted and do not know how to pray, the Spirit intercedes for us before the Father (Romans 8:26-27).
The youth pastor talked about how the Holy Spirit empowers and strengthens people for Christian service. You know the times when you are sharing the Gospel, and you are not entirely sure how the words are coming out of your mouth? That is the Holy Spirit. The youth pastor most likely was not saying that the Spirit possesses believers, but rather that the believer is caught up in something beyond himself or herself. Something is working on the inside and bringing what is on the inside to the outside. I cannot say that this has happened to me, as far as I can recall. It is awkward for me to try to sell any belief to another person, including Christianity. In the times that I have been “bold,” I did not feel authentic. I was trying to obey some command to witness, which felt forced and artificial, or I was seeking to bring attention to myself by being controversial. When the latter was the case, being the people-pleaser that I am, I could easily find myself compromising my Christian beliefs to make other people like me. While I have not experienced what the youth pastor was talking about, I can envision it as an experience.
The pastor then preached about the Holy Spirit. His main text was Ezekiel 37, which is about the valley of dry bones. God asked Ezekiel if those bones could live. According to the pastor, Ezekiel was caught in a dilemma. He didn’t want to say “no” because that would indicate that he had no faith. But he did not want to be presumptuous and answer “yes,” for, on their own, the bones could not live. Ezekiel left the answer to God by saying that God knows.
The pastor also said that the Holy Spirit is rather nebulous to us. The Father and the Son are expressed in personal and relatable terms: Father and Son. The Son even has a name, “Jesus.” If the Spirit had a name, such as “Bob,” perhaps we would relate to him better. And yet, even though the Spirit is arguably the most nebulous, hard-to-grasp member of the Trinity, he is relationally close to us. The same Hebrew term for Spirit is also the term for “breath,” indicating that the Spirit is as close to us and as intimate with us as our own breath. And, when we are exhausted and do not know how to pray, the Spirit intercedes for us before the Father (Romans 8:26-27).
Monday, August 12, 2019
Book Write-Up: Doing Theology with the Reformers, by Gerald L. Bray
Gerald L. Bray. Doing Theology with the Reformers. IVP Academic, 2019. See here to purchase the book.
Gerald L. Bray is an Anglican priest, author and editor of books about theology, and professor at Beeson Divinity School in Samford University.
This book is about Reformation theology. Among the topics that Bray engages are salvation, the relationship of Christians to Old Testament law, the relationship between church and state, ecclesiastical structure, and the sacraments.
Those with a basic knowledge about the differences among denominations will recognize a lot of what Bray says, but Bray fleshes those differences out and attempts to account for them. I learned new things from this book, such as Melanchthon’s view that good works play a role in salvation, and how the belief in common grace by Abraham Kuyper and Charles Hodge rejected the belief that Adam and Eve were under a covenant of works, which made salvation contingent on works. For Kuyper and Hodge, Adam and Eve were recipients of divine grace, even though common grace is not salvific. Because I attend an LCMS church, which believes in the real presence of Christ in the communion elements, the discussion in this book about communion interested me, as some believed that people ingested Christ by faith at communion, whereas others thought that even unbelievers ingested Christ when they partook of the sacrament, leading to their damnation.
A discussion in this book that was particularly effective concerned the education of the Reformers. Reformers, and educated Christians in general, learned Latin and communicated in that in their studies. Bray paints a vivid picture of that, one that engages the reader and allows readers to envision themselves as there, or at least relieved that education is not like that anymore!
One area of disagreement that I have with Bray is on the definition of supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. Bray defines infralapsarianism as God electing people to salvation and damnation after the Fall. Based on my reading of Shao Kai Tseng’s Karl Barth’s Infralapsarian Theology, my impression is that this is a common mistake. Infralapsarianism does not teach that God elected people after the Fall, but rather that God made his election as a logical consequence of the Fall. God decreed the Fall, then God elected, but both decrees occurred before the foundation of the world, not after the Fall.
This is still an excellent book. It is a resource of information, but also a meaty, satisfying account of Reformation theology.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
Gerald L. Bray is an Anglican priest, author and editor of books about theology, and professor at Beeson Divinity School in Samford University.
This book is about Reformation theology. Among the topics that Bray engages are salvation, the relationship of Christians to Old Testament law, the relationship between church and state, ecclesiastical structure, and the sacraments.
Those with a basic knowledge about the differences among denominations will recognize a lot of what Bray says, but Bray fleshes those differences out and attempts to account for them. I learned new things from this book, such as Melanchthon’s view that good works play a role in salvation, and how the belief in common grace by Abraham Kuyper and Charles Hodge rejected the belief that Adam and Eve were under a covenant of works, which made salvation contingent on works. For Kuyper and Hodge, Adam and Eve were recipients of divine grace, even though common grace is not salvific. Because I attend an LCMS church, which believes in the real presence of Christ in the communion elements, the discussion in this book about communion interested me, as some believed that people ingested Christ by faith at communion, whereas others thought that even unbelievers ingested Christ when they partook of the sacrament, leading to their damnation.
A discussion in this book that was particularly effective concerned the education of the Reformers. Reformers, and educated Christians in general, learned Latin and communicated in that in their studies. Bray paints a vivid picture of that, one that engages the reader and allows readers to envision themselves as there, or at least relieved that education is not like that anymore!
One area of disagreement that I have with Bray is on the definition of supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. Bray defines infralapsarianism as God electing people to salvation and damnation after the Fall. Based on my reading of Shao Kai Tseng’s Karl Barth’s Infralapsarian Theology, my impression is that this is a common mistake. Infralapsarianism does not teach that God elected people after the Fall, but rather that God made his election as a logical consequence of the Fall. God decreed the Fall, then God elected, but both decrees occurred before the foundation of the world, not after the Fall.
This is still an excellent book. It is a resource of information, but also a meaty, satisfying account of Reformation theology.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Church Write-Up: A Lutheran in Africa
At church last Sunday, we had a speaker who talked about his mission experiences as a Lutheran in Africa.
Here are some items from what the speaker said.
A. There are more Lutherans in Africa than there are in North America, but there are few missionaries there, and the pastors in Africa lack the theological training to teach their congregations. Often, the one family in the area that has a Bible is asked to conduct the service. Hardly anyone knows Luther’s Small Catechism, which Lutherans in the Western world memorize. The speaker’s organization aims to fill this deficiency and to train the pastors in Africa to teach their congregations. He showed a picture of an African memorizing Luther’s Small Catechism for a seminary class.
B. Name-it-claim-it Christianity is popular in Africa, as African Christians trust in God to bless them materially and to lift them out of poverty. The speaker contrasted this with what he believes is the truth: God is with us in the midst of our suffering. He referred to the youth pastor’s message in our church, but the youth pastor himself acknowledged that God sometimes may make problems go away, but does not always. The speaker also contrasted the preoccupation with wealth with Jesus’s humility, tying his message to the Apostle’s Creed, through which out church is going this summer.
C. Many Africans are hungry for Christianity. The speaker showed a picture of a hunter and remarked that he had memorized an entire set of Johnny Cash Gospel songs. Pentecostalism is prominent in Africa, and that is a good thing because it believes in the blood atonement of Christ, which is important to Lutherans, but Pentecostalism also has prosperity Gospel baggage. Some Africans hold on to their traditional religious beliefs, such as animal sacrifice to make the gods happy and encourage the gods to bless them.
D. It is important to give goods to Africa, but many of them end up on the black market. There are many there with greasy palms. Borders are guarded by heavily-armed guards, who charge the Americans more because Americans are from a wealthy country, and also seek a little extra for themselves.
E. Northern Africa is Muslim-dominated. If the pastor of the organization were to wear his collar in Somalia, he would probably be killed. People come from Somalia to Kenya to learn Christianity. Some are killed when they go back to Somalia, yet new people keep coming from Somalia to Kenya to learn about Christianity. The reason is that they hope to learn the Gospel and to share it with their families.
F. Swahili is prominent in Africa, but English is becoming increasingly popular. The church services that the speaker holds are in English.
G. Lions are like housecats: they sleep most of the time. When they get hungry, the female will go out and attack a wildebeast. Lions won’t bother people if people don’t bother them. Hippos, however, can be quite aggressive towards humans.
Here are some items from what the speaker said.
A. There are more Lutherans in Africa than there are in North America, but there are few missionaries there, and the pastors in Africa lack the theological training to teach their congregations. Often, the one family in the area that has a Bible is asked to conduct the service. Hardly anyone knows Luther’s Small Catechism, which Lutherans in the Western world memorize. The speaker’s organization aims to fill this deficiency and to train the pastors in Africa to teach their congregations. He showed a picture of an African memorizing Luther’s Small Catechism for a seminary class.
B. Name-it-claim-it Christianity is popular in Africa, as African Christians trust in God to bless them materially and to lift them out of poverty. The speaker contrasted this with what he believes is the truth: God is with us in the midst of our suffering. He referred to the youth pastor’s message in our church, but the youth pastor himself acknowledged that God sometimes may make problems go away, but does not always. The speaker also contrasted the preoccupation with wealth with Jesus’s humility, tying his message to the Apostle’s Creed, through which out church is going this summer.
C. Many Africans are hungry for Christianity. The speaker showed a picture of a hunter and remarked that he had memorized an entire set of Johnny Cash Gospel songs. Pentecostalism is prominent in Africa, and that is a good thing because it believes in the blood atonement of Christ, which is important to Lutherans, but Pentecostalism also has prosperity Gospel baggage. Some Africans hold on to their traditional religious beliefs, such as animal sacrifice to make the gods happy and encourage the gods to bless them.
D. It is important to give goods to Africa, but many of them end up on the black market. There are many there with greasy palms. Borders are guarded by heavily-armed guards, who charge the Americans more because Americans are from a wealthy country, and also seek a little extra for themselves.
E. Northern Africa is Muslim-dominated. If the pastor of the organization were to wear his collar in Somalia, he would probably be killed. People come from Somalia to Kenya to learn Christianity. Some are killed when they go back to Somalia, yet new people keep coming from Somalia to Kenya to learn about Christianity. The reason is that they hope to learn the Gospel and to share it with their families.
F. Swahili is prominent in Africa, but English is becoming increasingly popular. The church services that the speaker holds are in English.
G. Lions are like housecats: they sleep most of the time. When they get hungry, the female will go out and attack a wildebeast. Lions won’t bother people if people don’t bother them. Hippos, however, can be quite aggressive towards humans.
Monday, August 5, 2019
Book Write-Up: Trump’s America, by Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich. Trump’s America: The Truth about Our Nation’s Great Comeback. Center Street, 2018. See here to purchase the book.
Newt Gingrich was the Republican Speaker of the House during the 1990’s and a Republican Presidential candidate in 2012. He has written numerous books. Trump’s America is a defense of President Donald Trump.
Here are some thoughts:
A. A glaring omission in this book is that Gingrich, as far as I can recall, rarely comments on the non-interventionist aspects of Trump’s foreign policy. Trump ran for President denouncing the Iraq War as a mistake. Gingrich, by contrast, categorizes certain critics of the Iraq War as members of the anti-American left. While Trump does change his positions regularly, a salient aspect of his foreign policy approach, to which he has returned more than once, includes non-interventionism in Syria and a cooperative relationship between the U.S. and such nations as Russia and North Korea. But Gingrich chooses to highlight the more bellicose aspects of Trump’s foreign policy, such as Trump’s opposition to America’s nuclear agreement with Iran. Moreover, when people mention Trump’s averse relationship to the “Deep State,” they usually mean the national security apparatus: the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, etc. But Gingrich, in criticizing the “swamp,” focuses more on domestic bureaucratic regulators and agencies. One might think that Gingrich’s Republican establishment views color his glowing presentation of Trump’s policies, when part of Trump’s appeal is that he is a non-establishment Republican. This is largely accurate, but not entirely, for Gingrich defends Trump’s protectionist policies and admits error in his own initial support for NAFTA.
B. Gingrich supports treatment rather than incarceration for opioid addicts as well as endorses criminal justice reform. This may differ from the conventional “tough on criminals,” “lock them up” stance of conservatives, but the Republican Party in general has become more open to criminal justice reform over the past decade. Gingrich, however, goes so far as to criticize the stern anti-drug policy of then Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which is noteworthy in light of the predominantly pro-Trump tone of this book.
C. Gingrich includes a chapter that criticizes the left’s opposition to free speech. Such opposition includes safe spaces, the disruption of conservative speakers on campuses, and the firing of people who express politically incorrect views. Gingrich points to Trump’s offensive comments as examples of his defense of free speech. Gingrich admits that Trump sometimes goes too far, yet he applauds Trump’s refreshing candor and how Trump highlights concrete examples of where liberal policies have hurt people (e.g., illegal immigrant gangs). Gingrich also offers an informative presentation of left-wing stances on speech: the view that words actually do hurt people and thus should be regulated. Free speech is a difficult issue. Gingrich may be correct that conservatives should be allowed to freely express their views, but he should not be surprised when liberals lash back. Free speech works both ways. The challenge is finding a way for different views to co-exist peacefully and respectfully. And the question, then, is whether Trump advances that goal through his rhetoric. Part of Trump’s appeal, of course, is that he challenges the sanitized, banal nature of conventional political discourse and speaks his mind. But is there a way to allow different views to co-exist peacefully, outside of that sanitized, banal approach to political discourse, with all its rules of civility and decorum? Gingrich did not really address these issues.
D. Gingrich defends Trump’s tax policy. While Trump’s tax cuts may not look like much for the middle class, he argues, those who economically struggle will appreciate the extra money and will put it to good use. This is fine, but Gingrich also argues that middle class people should take some responsibility for their health care costs. Taxes are bad, but premiums and deductibles are not so bad?
E. In his chapter on immigration, Gingrich favors immigrants assimilating after they come to the U.S. This stands out to me because, when one listens to certain white nationalists, one can get the impression that they are in favor of non-whites keeping to themselves and preserving their own culture, just so long as they allow whites to do the same. Gingrich, of course, is not a white nationalist, but white nationalists have supported Trump in the past. I just wonder how they hold their views together. Like Gingrich, they argue that a society that is overly heterogeneous can be problematic. Yet, unlike Gingrich, they tend to endorse separatism among races and ethnicities.
F. Overall, the book is an intelligent conservative defense of President Trump’s policies and critique of the policies of Trump’s predecessor, President Barack Obama. Gingrich provides arguments and research for his claims—-about the pitfalls of net neutrality, Obamacare, the TPP, and the Iran nuclear agreement; the hindering affect of taxes and regulations on American businesses and innovation; the failure of the Paris climate accord to significantly affect climate change; the success of welfare reform in increasing the income of recipients and reducing dependency; the American Bar Association’s liberal bias, and the attacks by President Obama on for-profit vocational schools. Gingrich largely depicts Trump as a successful President. Trump’s economic policies have created 3 per cent growth in GDP, after the media proclaimed this would never happen. Trump has also placed conservative judges in the judiciary at an unprecedented pace. In addition, Gingrich critiques the Mueller investigation, presenting examples of what Gingrich believes to be its abuses. This book is one-sided, of course, and people can come back at Gingrich’s arguments with arguments to the contrary. But, as a defense of Trump, this book raises important considerations.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
Newt Gingrich was the Republican Speaker of the House during the 1990’s and a Republican Presidential candidate in 2012. He has written numerous books. Trump’s America is a defense of President Donald Trump.
Here are some thoughts:
A. A glaring omission in this book is that Gingrich, as far as I can recall, rarely comments on the non-interventionist aspects of Trump’s foreign policy. Trump ran for President denouncing the Iraq War as a mistake. Gingrich, by contrast, categorizes certain critics of the Iraq War as members of the anti-American left. While Trump does change his positions regularly, a salient aspect of his foreign policy approach, to which he has returned more than once, includes non-interventionism in Syria and a cooperative relationship between the U.S. and such nations as Russia and North Korea. But Gingrich chooses to highlight the more bellicose aspects of Trump’s foreign policy, such as Trump’s opposition to America’s nuclear agreement with Iran. Moreover, when people mention Trump’s averse relationship to the “Deep State,” they usually mean the national security apparatus: the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, etc. But Gingrich, in criticizing the “swamp,” focuses more on domestic bureaucratic regulators and agencies. One might think that Gingrich’s Republican establishment views color his glowing presentation of Trump’s policies, when part of Trump’s appeal is that he is a non-establishment Republican. This is largely accurate, but not entirely, for Gingrich defends Trump’s protectionist policies and admits error in his own initial support for NAFTA.
B. Gingrich supports treatment rather than incarceration for opioid addicts as well as endorses criminal justice reform. This may differ from the conventional “tough on criminals,” “lock them up” stance of conservatives, but the Republican Party in general has become more open to criminal justice reform over the past decade. Gingrich, however, goes so far as to criticize the stern anti-drug policy of then Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which is noteworthy in light of the predominantly pro-Trump tone of this book.
C. Gingrich includes a chapter that criticizes the left’s opposition to free speech. Such opposition includes safe spaces, the disruption of conservative speakers on campuses, and the firing of people who express politically incorrect views. Gingrich points to Trump’s offensive comments as examples of his defense of free speech. Gingrich admits that Trump sometimes goes too far, yet he applauds Trump’s refreshing candor and how Trump highlights concrete examples of where liberal policies have hurt people (e.g., illegal immigrant gangs). Gingrich also offers an informative presentation of left-wing stances on speech: the view that words actually do hurt people and thus should be regulated. Free speech is a difficult issue. Gingrich may be correct that conservatives should be allowed to freely express their views, but he should not be surprised when liberals lash back. Free speech works both ways. The challenge is finding a way for different views to co-exist peacefully and respectfully. And the question, then, is whether Trump advances that goal through his rhetoric. Part of Trump’s appeal, of course, is that he challenges the sanitized, banal nature of conventional political discourse and speaks his mind. But is there a way to allow different views to co-exist peacefully, outside of that sanitized, banal approach to political discourse, with all its rules of civility and decorum? Gingrich did not really address these issues.
D. Gingrich defends Trump’s tax policy. While Trump’s tax cuts may not look like much for the middle class, he argues, those who economically struggle will appreciate the extra money and will put it to good use. This is fine, but Gingrich also argues that middle class people should take some responsibility for their health care costs. Taxes are bad, but premiums and deductibles are not so bad?
E. In his chapter on immigration, Gingrich favors immigrants assimilating after they come to the U.S. This stands out to me because, when one listens to certain white nationalists, one can get the impression that they are in favor of non-whites keeping to themselves and preserving their own culture, just so long as they allow whites to do the same. Gingrich, of course, is not a white nationalist, but white nationalists have supported Trump in the past. I just wonder how they hold their views together. Like Gingrich, they argue that a society that is overly heterogeneous can be problematic. Yet, unlike Gingrich, they tend to endorse separatism among races and ethnicities.
F. Overall, the book is an intelligent conservative defense of President Trump’s policies and critique of the policies of Trump’s predecessor, President Barack Obama. Gingrich provides arguments and research for his claims—-about the pitfalls of net neutrality, Obamacare, the TPP, and the Iran nuclear agreement; the hindering affect of taxes and regulations on American businesses and innovation; the failure of the Paris climate accord to significantly affect climate change; the success of welfare reform in increasing the income of recipients and reducing dependency; the American Bar Association’s liberal bias, and the attacks by President Obama on for-profit vocational schools. Gingrich largely depicts Trump as a successful President. Trump’s economic policies have created 3 per cent growth in GDP, after the media proclaimed this would never happen. Trump has also placed conservative judges in the judiciary at an unprecedented pace. In addition, Gingrich critiques the Mueller investigation, presenting examples of what Gingrich believes to be its abuses. This book is one-sided, of course, and people can come back at Gingrich’s arguments with arguments to the contrary. But, as a defense of Trump, this book raises important considerations.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
Saturday, August 3, 2019
Church Write-Up: Funeral for Pastor B
I went to a funeral yesterday at the church that I regularly
attend. The person who passed on was the pastor of the church from 1961
until his retirement in 1990. After retiring, he continued to attend the
church, so he was there for sixty years. He was 91. I will call him
“Pastor B” in this post, to differentiate him from the current pastor,
who spoke at the funeral.
Pastor B always sat in the very back of the sanctuary with his wife. I would greet him when I came into the sanctuary, or, if I were there first, he would greet me when he came in. He always praised me for being faithful. The current pastor was correct when he said that Pastor B made everyone feel like his best friend.
The pastor’s sermon reminded me of something else that Pastor B used to do. After the bell choir or the choir did its special music, Pastor B would be the first to clap. Then, everyone else would applaud. He was an encouraging person.
The pastor commented that Pastor B influenced the culture of that church. He made it more of a family. I see that anytime someone sits next to me at Sunday school and gets to know me. You don’t find that at every church.
What also stood out to me was that Pastor B was loving, even though he experienced his share of suffering. Two of his seven children preceded him in death. Although he got around very well, in terms of walking and driving, he experienced physical pain. He had cancer in his later years and underwent chemo.
I will miss greeting Pastor B at the church. The pastor talked about empty chairs where people we love used to sit. That will be felt this next Sunday, and long thereafter.
Pastor B always sat in the very back of the sanctuary with his wife. I would greet him when I came into the sanctuary, or, if I were there first, he would greet me when he came in. He always praised me for being faithful. The current pastor was correct when he said that Pastor B made everyone feel like his best friend.
The pastor’s sermon reminded me of something else that Pastor B used to do. After the bell choir or the choir did its special music, Pastor B would be the first to clap. Then, everyone else would applaud. He was an encouraging person.
The pastor commented that Pastor B influenced the culture of that church. He made it more of a family. I see that anytime someone sits next to me at Sunday school and gets to know me. You don’t find that at every church.
What also stood out to me was that Pastor B was loving, even though he experienced his share of suffering. Two of his seven children preceded him in death. Although he got around very well, in terms of walking and driving, he experienced physical pain. He had cancer in his later years and underwent chemo.
I will miss greeting Pastor B at the church. The pastor talked about empty chairs where people we love used to sit. That will be felt this next Sunday, and long thereafter.