John MacArthur, Jr. Alone with God: The Power and Passion of Prayer. Victor, 1995. See here to buy the book.
John MacArthur, Jr. is the pastor of Grace Community Church and has written numerous books. Alone with God is about prayer.
MacArthur goes through each petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew
6:9-13). Framing those chapters are discussions about the proper
attitude that Christians should have when praying, and the proper things
to pray for. According to MacArthur, the proper things to pray for are
the spiritual growth of other believers and the salvation of
non-believers.
My impression of this MacArthur book is similar to that of the vast
majority of other MacArthur books that I have read. MacArthur presents a
high standard that I cannot live up to. For instance, he says that any
negative thought about God fails to hallow God’s name. But did not the
Psalmists have negative thoughts about God? While MacArthur is
challenging to read in that respect, he is still edifying. He has an
engaging, yet weighty, style. Moreover, while I cannot live up to God’s
“law,” God’s law is edifying, as a righteous and wholesome set of
propositions about how people should be.
MacArthur is especially edifying when he lays out biblical rationales
for his points. In the chapter about praying for non-believers, for
example, he systematically goes through biblical examples of people of
God praying that Israelites, or others, might arrive at a right
relationship with God. In his chapter on forgiveness, he lists practical
reasons for Christians to forgive each other.
When MacArthur wrestled with difficult issues, he was effective. For
instance, there is “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil.” Why would we need to ask God to do this, since God never tempts
anyone, anyway (James 1:13)? If the petition asks God not to lead us
into trials, how does that reconcile with New Testament statements about
trials refining or purifying the character of believers, making them,
arguably, a good thing? I will quote MacArthur’s solution on page 113,
for future personal reference:
“I affirm with Chrysostom, the early church father, that the solution
to this issue is that Jesus is not dealing with logic or theology but
with a natural appeal of human weakness as it faces danger (Homily
19:10). We all desire to avoid the danger and trouble that sin creates.
This petition is thus the expression of the redeemed soul that so
despises and fears sin that it wants to escape all prospects of falling
into it, choosing to avoid rather than having to defeat temptation.”
On some topics, MacArthur could have wrestled more. On “Give us this
day our daily bread,” he addresses the question of how Christians in the
West can pray this, when many of them do not have to worry about their
next meal. MacArthur argues from the Bible that God promises to provide
for the needs of believers. That may be, but what about people who
starve to death due to poverty?
MacArthur could say, I suppose, that
they are not believers and thus are not entitled to God’s provision, but
Jesus presented a scenario in which a poor man, Lazarus, died and went
to Abraham’s bosom. Did God fail to fulfill God’s promise to provide for
the godly in Lazarus’s hypothetical case?
On “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” MacArthur
distinguishes between judicial forgiveness and parental forgiveness. All
Christians have judicial forgiveness from God, in that God considers
them righteous through Christ rather than sinners. They may lack a
relational parental forgiveness from God, however, because they have
failed to confess their sins or to forgive others. That is one way to
harmonize the two different depictions of forgiveness in the New
Testament: that it is a state that believers enter through their faith
in Christ, versus the view that it is something that people need
continually receive through confession, repentance, and forgiving
others. Another way to harmonize these two approaches is the Roman
Catholic view: people become Christians through baptism but then have to
maintain their Christian status through regular confession, rather than
falling into hardness of heart or mortal sin.
At the same time, MacArthur backs away somewhat from any notion that
Christians can refuse to forgive others while still trusting in their
positional, judicial righteousness in Christ, for he states that a
“Christian” who is not merciful may lack the new heart that God gives to
believers and thus may not even be a Christian.
Then there is this statement on page 108: “Because God deals with us
just as we deal with others, we are to forgive others as freely and
graciously as God forgives us.” Is God’s forgiveness of us truly free
and gracious, however, if he deals with us as we deal with others? One
approach is, well, free and gracious, whereas the other approach is very
conditional and limited according to our paltry ability to forgive.
Overall, MacArthur does try to harmonize details of Scripture with
his Calvinist viewpoint. Why, for example, should believers pray for
others’ salvation, when God has already determined who should be saved
or damned? That adds an interesting theological element to the book.
MacArthur also tells an anecdote about when he was a child and
vandalized a school. Who would have known? MacArthur was a bad boy!
The appendix has questions for group discussions, which are good and
fairly open-ended. It also recommends accessible, yet meaty, Christian
books for further edification and study.
James Bradford Pate's comments on religion, politics, entertainment, books, and life
Monday, April 26, 2021
Sunday, April 25, 2021
Book Write-Up: The Great Deformation, by David A. Stockman
David A. Stockman. The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America. PublicAffairs, 2013. See here to purchase the book.
David Stockman has served as a congressman, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director, and a private equity investor.
While people with a solid grounding in economics are the ones who will understand this book, Stockman is pretty clear about what he supports and what he opposes. He favors a sound and tight currency (i.e., gold standard) rather than the Federal Reserve printing out lots of money. He is critical of debt, both government debt but also people borrowing lots of money (due to low interest rates) that they will not pay back. He is against deficits, so he favors cuts in government spending and is critical of tax cuts; he favors a VAT. His belief in fiscal responsibility encompasses both domestic programs and also the military. He wants federal welfare programs to be stricter and more means-tested, and he opposes regime-changing wars. He is highly critical of crony capitalism and favors rigorous campaign finance reform. He supports a stronger Glass-Steagall. While he supports free markets, he is not anti-regulation; he does, however, want to abolish the minimum wage.
On the issue of trade, his position is unclear. He does not seem to like jobs going overseas, and he laments that the U.S. has increases in health care and education jobs but not in jobs in the productive sphere. Yet, he argues that high tariffs contributed to the Great Depression and appears critical of the U.S. ceasing its reliance on cheap imported oil to focus on domestic energy.
The book is particularly interesting and informative in its revisionist history, on a number of fronts. Some examples:
—-The U.S. economy was gradually improving until Franklin Roosevelt became President, so the New Deal did not get the U.S. out of the Depression.
—-The severe economic downturn in 1936-1937 was not due to the government cutting its spending and raising taxes. Rather, it was due to people not spending money after their stimulus cash ran out.
—-World War II does not demonstrate the success of Keynesianism, uplifting the economy through intense deficit spending. The U.S. actually fought World War II in a fiscally responsible, pay-as-you-go manner.
—-The energy crisis of the 1970’s was not due to anything OPEC did, for what OPEC did was brief. Rather, it was part of the general inflation of the period, due to increasing government spending (Great Society, Vietnam), tax cuts, and the undermining of the gold standard.
—-Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts did not improve the economy. The Reagan prosperity was fueled by debt and assisted by Paul Volker’s drastic squeezing out of inflation. Statistics indicate that supply and production did not boom during the Reagan years but only increased slightly. The increase in government revenue that eventually occurred under Reagan was due to his tax increases.
—-Reagan’s defense buildup was unnecessary and largely relied on conventional warfare, when, for Stockman, nuclear weapons were a cheaper way to deter the Soviets.
—-The Wall Street bailout in the late 2000’s was unnecessary to save Main Street, for Main Street largely did not use those Wall Street banks.
While Stockman does not cite many sources in the course of the book, he gives his sources in the appendix. His economics numbers are largely based on Federal Reserve statistics. He also prefers many sources prior to the 1950’s, since they are not as Keynesian and do not blame tight money for the bank panics in the nineteenth-early twentieth centuries.
The book has its heroes, villains, and those in between. Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Milton Friedman get criticism for undermining the gold standard. Ronald Reagan is criticized for federal deficits and debt. Dwight Eisenhower, however, receives praise for supporting balanced budgets, and Gerald Ford, at least in the early stage of his Presidency, for being a deficit hawk.
This book is advanced and often went over my head, but the prose is still breezy. Stockman also intersperses his narrative with pop culture analogies, such as Lucy taking away the football from Charlie Brown.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
David Stockman has served as a congressman, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director, and a private equity investor.
While people with a solid grounding in economics are the ones who will understand this book, Stockman is pretty clear about what he supports and what he opposes. He favors a sound and tight currency (i.e., gold standard) rather than the Federal Reserve printing out lots of money. He is critical of debt, both government debt but also people borrowing lots of money (due to low interest rates) that they will not pay back. He is against deficits, so he favors cuts in government spending and is critical of tax cuts; he favors a VAT. His belief in fiscal responsibility encompasses both domestic programs and also the military. He wants federal welfare programs to be stricter and more means-tested, and he opposes regime-changing wars. He is highly critical of crony capitalism and favors rigorous campaign finance reform. He supports a stronger Glass-Steagall. While he supports free markets, he is not anti-regulation; he does, however, want to abolish the minimum wage.
On the issue of trade, his position is unclear. He does not seem to like jobs going overseas, and he laments that the U.S. has increases in health care and education jobs but not in jobs in the productive sphere. Yet, he argues that high tariffs contributed to the Great Depression and appears critical of the U.S. ceasing its reliance on cheap imported oil to focus on domestic energy.
The book is particularly interesting and informative in its revisionist history, on a number of fronts. Some examples:
—-The U.S. economy was gradually improving until Franklin Roosevelt became President, so the New Deal did not get the U.S. out of the Depression.
—-The severe economic downturn in 1936-1937 was not due to the government cutting its spending and raising taxes. Rather, it was due to people not spending money after their stimulus cash ran out.
—-World War II does not demonstrate the success of Keynesianism, uplifting the economy through intense deficit spending. The U.S. actually fought World War II in a fiscally responsible, pay-as-you-go manner.
—-The energy crisis of the 1970’s was not due to anything OPEC did, for what OPEC did was brief. Rather, it was part of the general inflation of the period, due to increasing government spending (Great Society, Vietnam), tax cuts, and the undermining of the gold standard.
—-Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts did not improve the economy. The Reagan prosperity was fueled by debt and assisted by Paul Volker’s drastic squeezing out of inflation. Statistics indicate that supply and production did not boom during the Reagan years but only increased slightly. The increase in government revenue that eventually occurred under Reagan was due to his tax increases.
—-Reagan’s defense buildup was unnecessary and largely relied on conventional warfare, when, for Stockman, nuclear weapons were a cheaper way to deter the Soviets.
—-The Wall Street bailout in the late 2000’s was unnecessary to save Main Street, for Main Street largely did not use those Wall Street banks.
While Stockman does not cite many sources in the course of the book, he gives his sources in the appendix. His economics numbers are largely based on Federal Reserve statistics. He also prefers many sources prior to the 1950’s, since they are not as Keynesian and do not blame tight money for the bank panics in the nineteenth-early twentieth centuries.
The book has its heroes, villains, and those in between. Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Milton Friedman get criticism for undermining the gold standard. Ronald Reagan is criticized for federal deficits and debt. Dwight Eisenhower, however, receives praise for supporting balanced budgets, and Gerald Ford, at least in the early stage of his Presidency, for being a deficit hawk.
This book is advanced and often went over my head, but the prose is still breezy. Stockman also intersperses his narrative with pop culture analogies, such as Lucy taking away the football from Charlie Brown.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
Book Write-Up: In the Footsteps of Faith, by John F. MacArthur
John F. MacArthur. In the Footsteps of Faith: Lessons from the Lives of Great Men and Women of the Bible. Crossway, 1998. See here to buy the book.
In this book, John MacArthur talks about fourteen biblical figures. They include Noah, Abraham, Moses, Rahab, Hannah, Jonah, Mary, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, Lydia, Timothy, Epaphroditus, and Jesus Christ.
Here are some thoughts and observations:
A. MacArthur never explicitly says this, but his approach to Scripture in this book can be called a “moral exemplar” approach. The “moral exemplar” approach treats biblical figures as moral and spiritual examples of how people are to behave. Such an approach has been criticized, particularly in Lutheran circles, but also in evangelical circles. The reason for their criticism is that they believe that Scripture’s purpose is not to offer us moral examples, for many of the biblical characters fall short morally; rather, the purpose of Scripture is to show us that we are sinners so that we see our need for forgiveness and go to Christ for salvation. The focus here is on Christ as savior, not morality. MacArthur does acknowledge the need to focus on Christ, for he refers to Hebrews 12:2’s exhortation that Christians look to Jesus, the author and finisher of their faith. But he largely treats the biblical characters he profiles as moral and spiritual examples: Noah, Abraham, and Rahab have faith, Mary humbly and enthusiastically exalts God’s and God’s purposes, John the Baptist is unflinching in preaching God’s word, and Epaphroditus sincerely cares about the Philippian church and wants it to know he is all right. What do I think about the “moral exemplar” approach? I think that a Scriptural case can be made for it, for Hebrews 11 showcases heroes of the faith to encourage the demoralized Hebrew believers to persevere in their faith. Moreover, the “moral exemplar” approach can be interesting because it focuses on the biblical text and its distinct dimensions rather than subordinating all of it to a doctrine of penal substitution. But what if I fall short of the morality of these exemplars? What if I cannot muster up genuine, enthusiastic, God-focused worship, or sincere concern for other people? Can these things even be commanded? The way that I read and enjoy MacArthur without going crazy is that I embrace a Lutheran law/Gospel approach: the law is good and edifying, but it breaks us because we do not keep it, and that is why we need Christ as savior. Reading MacArthur is a way for me to feed on the banquet of God’s beautiful and orderly standards, but I cannot stop there, for I would be discouraged by how much I fall short. What may have made MacArthur’s book better is if he had focused more on God, not just the humility and the morality of the biblical characters. What is it about God that inspires the biblical characters to act this way? More acknowledgment of biblical characters’ flaws may have enhanced the book, too.
B. I did not like this book as much as other MacArthur books that I have read. It did not have as much depth or meat as his other books. MacArthur, to his credit, did address puzzles or questions, but I was unsatisfied by many of his answers. For instance, Jesus said that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11). MacArthur interprets this to mean that, while John the Baptist is the greatest in the earthly realm, he is equal to all believers in the spiritual realm. But the text does not say that John the Baptist is equal to believers, but rather that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. MacArthur has a problem with Rahab lying to protect the Israelite spies in Jericho, but how else could she have hidden them? MacArthur thinks she should have just told the truth, and God would have protected the spies somehow. MacArthur tries to harmonize I Samuel 1’s apparent statement that Elkanah and his family went to the central sanctuary every year, with the prescription in the Torah that the Israelites appear before God three times each year (Exodus 34:23; Deuteronomy 16:16); his explanation was a bit of a stretch, for why would I Samuel 1 focus on years, if Elkanah went multiple times a year? In some cases, MacArthur engages questions rather adeptly, yet his engagement is very terse and could have used more meat. This was evident, to me, in his attempts to explain how Abraham’s apparent wavering in the faith in Genesis is consistent with Romans 4:20’s statement that Abraham never wavered in the faith, and his various explanations for how Moses in Hebrews 11:26 suffered for the sake of Christ. At times, MacArthur explains verses I have wondered about, as when he explains Luke 3:5’s statement that John the Baptist will lift up valleys and bring down mountains. What does that mean? MacArthur argues that it means that John’s ministry will encourage people to live moral, rather than crooked, lives. That makes some sense, but there may be other possibilities: John the Baptist brings down the religious and civil rulers while uplifting the lowly and downcast by bringing them God, or John clears the way for Jesus to come by spiritually preparing people with a message of repentance and eschatological anticipation. Occasionally, MacArthur refers to an interesting historical detail, as when he states that Lydia’s name may not have been “Lydia” but rather referred to her home city being in the Roman province of Lydia. At one point, MacArthur, echoing James Montgomery Boice, reads Reformed soteriology into Scripture, as when he contends that Noah’s finding grace in the eyes of the LORD in Genesis 6:8 was the prerequisite for Noah’s righteousness, blamelessness, and walk of faith in v. 9. That could be, but another way to read the passage is that Noah was favored by God because he was more righteous than others in his corrupt generation. There were times when MacArthur illustrated the story, as when he narrates that the Israelite spies had to cross the Jordan to get to Jericho, but the book could have used more of that. It also could have used more explanations of specific texts: why do Hannah and Mary, for instance, say that God will bring down the mighty and lift up the lowly? In what sense do they believe God does this? How does their situation relate to that?
C. MacArthur presents the Christian life as one of agony, self-discipline, and perseverance. He referred to a race that he ran when he was young, in which he was exhausted at the end! MacArthur offers biblical texts in favor of his view, and perhaps I am wrong to see salvation as a passive process in which I rest and let God transform me. But is the Christian life supposed to be one of unending, uphill toil, until death? What about Jesus’s statement that his burden is light (Matthew 11:28-30), or peace and joy being parts of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22)?
In this book, John MacArthur talks about fourteen biblical figures. They include Noah, Abraham, Moses, Rahab, Hannah, Jonah, Mary, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, Lydia, Timothy, Epaphroditus, and Jesus Christ.
Here are some thoughts and observations:
A. MacArthur never explicitly says this, but his approach to Scripture in this book can be called a “moral exemplar” approach. The “moral exemplar” approach treats biblical figures as moral and spiritual examples of how people are to behave. Such an approach has been criticized, particularly in Lutheran circles, but also in evangelical circles. The reason for their criticism is that they believe that Scripture’s purpose is not to offer us moral examples, for many of the biblical characters fall short morally; rather, the purpose of Scripture is to show us that we are sinners so that we see our need for forgiveness and go to Christ for salvation. The focus here is on Christ as savior, not morality. MacArthur does acknowledge the need to focus on Christ, for he refers to Hebrews 12:2’s exhortation that Christians look to Jesus, the author and finisher of their faith. But he largely treats the biblical characters he profiles as moral and spiritual examples: Noah, Abraham, and Rahab have faith, Mary humbly and enthusiastically exalts God’s and God’s purposes, John the Baptist is unflinching in preaching God’s word, and Epaphroditus sincerely cares about the Philippian church and wants it to know he is all right. What do I think about the “moral exemplar” approach? I think that a Scriptural case can be made for it, for Hebrews 11 showcases heroes of the faith to encourage the demoralized Hebrew believers to persevere in their faith. Moreover, the “moral exemplar” approach can be interesting because it focuses on the biblical text and its distinct dimensions rather than subordinating all of it to a doctrine of penal substitution. But what if I fall short of the morality of these exemplars? What if I cannot muster up genuine, enthusiastic, God-focused worship, or sincere concern for other people? Can these things even be commanded? The way that I read and enjoy MacArthur without going crazy is that I embrace a Lutheran law/Gospel approach: the law is good and edifying, but it breaks us because we do not keep it, and that is why we need Christ as savior. Reading MacArthur is a way for me to feed on the banquet of God’s beautiful and orderly standards, but I cannot stop there, for I would be discouraged by how much I fall short. What may have made MacArthur’s book better is if he had focused more on God, not just the humility and the morality of the biblical characters. What is it about God that inspires the biblical characters to act this way? More acknowledgment of biblical characters’ flaws may have enhanced the book, too.
B. I did not like this book as much as other MacArthur books that I have read. It did not have as much depth or meat as his other books. MacArthur, to his credit, did address puzzles or questions, but I was unsatisfied by many of his answers. For instance, Jesus said that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11). MacArthur interprets this to mean that, while John the Baptist is the greatest in the earthly realm, he is equal to all believers in the spiritual realm. But the text does not say that John the Baptist is equal to believers, but rather that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. MacArthur has a problem with Rahab lying to protect the Israelite spies in Jericho, but how else could she have hidden them? MacArthur thinks she should have just told the truth, and God would have protected the spies somehow. MacArthur tries to harmonize I Samuel 1’s apparent statement that Elkanah and his family went to the central sanctuary every year, with the prescription in the Torah that the Israelites appear before God three times each year (Exodus 34:23; Deuteronomy 16:16); his explanation was a bit of a stretch, for why would I Samuel 1 focus on years, if Elkanah went multiple times a year? In some cases, MacArthur engages questions rather adeptly, yet his engagement is very terse and could have used more meat. This was evident, to me, in his attempts to explain how Abraham’s apparent wavering in the faith in Genesis is consistent with Romans 4:20’s statement that Abraham never wavered in the faith, and his various explanations for how Moses in Hebrews 11:26 suffered for the sake of Christ. At times, MacArthur explains verses I have wondered about, as when he explains Luke 3:5’s statement that John the Baptist will lift up valleys and bring down mountains. What does that mean? MacArthur argues that it means that John’s ministry will encourage people to live moral, rather than crooked, lives. That makes some sense, but there may be other possibilities: John the Baptist brings down the religious and civil rulers while uplifting the lowly and downcast by bringing them God, or John clears the way for Jesus to come by spiritually preparing people with a message of repentance and eschatological anticipation. Occasionally, MacArthur refers to an interesting historical detail, as when he states that Lydia’s name may not have been “Lydia” but rather referred to her home city being in the Roman province of Lydia. At one point, MacArthur, echoing James Montgomery Boice, reads Reformed soteriology into Scripture, as when he contends that Noah’s finding grace in the eyes of the LORD in Genesis 6:8 was the prerequisite for Noah’s righteousness, blamelessness, and walk of faith in v. 9. That could be, but another way to read the passage is that Noah was favored by God because he was more righteous than others in his corrupt generation. There were times when MacArthur illustrated the story, as when he narrates that the Israelite spies had to cross the Jordan to get to Jericho, but the book could have used more of that. It also could have used more explanations of specific texts: why do Hannah and Mary, for instance, say that God will bring down the mighty and lift up the lowly? In what sense do they believe God does this? How does their situation relate to that?
C. MacArthur presents the Christian life as one of agony, self-discipline, and perseverance. He referred to a race that he ran when he was young, in which he was exhausted at the end! MacArthur offers biblical texts in favor of his view, and perhaps I am wrong to see salvation as a passive process in which I rest and let God transform me. But is the Christian life supposed to be one of unending, uphill toil, until death? What about Jesus’s statement that his burden is light (Matthew 11:28-30), or peace and joy being parts of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22)?
Monday, April 19, 2021
Book Write-Up: None Dare Call It Treason…25 Years Later, by John A. Stormer
John A. Stormer. None Dare Call It Treason…25 Years Later. Liberty Bell Press, 1990, 1992. See here to purchase the book.
None Dare Call It Treason was a national bestseller in 1964, when conservative Barry Goldwater ran for President. Written and published by John A. Stormer, it professed to reveal Communist infiltration in American institutions. Stormer vigorously argued that American foreign and domestic policy, public education, news media, liberal churches, mental health facilities, unions, and tax-exempt foundations were serving the cause of international Communism. From the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt to Stormer’s own day, Stormer contended, Communists were weakening American resistance to Communism on the foreign and domestic fronts, thereby paving the way for the U.S. to become a Communist country. The U.S. government has made decisions that have undermined national defense, enabled the Communists to advance worldwide, and moved the U.S. towards economic collectivism. Meanwhile, prominent institutions propagandize against free enterprise and the traditional family and demonize anti-Communists in government and the private sector.
Twenty-five years later, it was 1989. Ronald Reagan had just been President, and George H.W. Bush was early in his term. Communism appeared to be collapsing throughout the world, with Glasnost, Perestroika, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. While one might think that this would give an anti-Communist like Stormer cause to rejoice, Stormer remained concerned. For Stormer, the alleged collapse of Communism was a mere ruse, designed to encourage the West to bail out the failing Communist economies. Communists still ruled in the Eastern European countries, and Gorbachev in speeches continued to voice his commitment to socialism and world Communist revolution. On the domestic front, Communists still infiltrated or influenced American institutions. They used government welfare agencies to foment protest and agitation, formed alliances with the left to oppose Reagan’s anti-Communist policies and the Bork nomination, and thwarted the candidacies of anti-Communist Democrats like Gary Hart. Meanwhile, public educational curricula and liberal churches continued to deride the traditional family, Christianity, and morality, all in accordance with Communist ideology. Through all of this, surveillance of domestic Communism was virtually abandoned, as institutions like HUAC became a thing of the past.
Stormer seems to treat Reagan as sincere in his conservative, anti-Communist convictions, but he has reservations about Reagan. As a result to the Iran-Contra affair, staunch anti-Communists like Oliver North have been marginalized within the Reagan Administration or removed from it entirely. Reagan ceased believing that the Soviet Union was an evil empire by his second term, and the arms control agreements that he made with the Soviets gave the Soviets an advantage and failed to live up to Reagan’s proclaimed goal of “trust but verify.” Stormer’s Christian religious convictions deepened between 1964 and 1989, and he came to believe more strongly that spiritual renewal was essential for the defeat of Communism. In light of that, he disapproved of Nancy Reagan’s consultation of astrologers.
This book preserved the vast majority of the 1964 text, while adding over three hundred pages of new material. It slightly altered the 1964 text to remove obsolete information. In the final chapter of the 1964 version, Stormer recommended conservative periodicals, which included Human Events, the Wanderer, and the Dan Smoot Report. In the update, he suggested Human Events and informed readers of its new address. Why he omitted the Wanderer is a mystery to me because it was still around in 2009, when I attended a conservative Catholic church.
Stormer’s book is well-documented. Critics accused Stormer of taking quotes out of context, as Stormer says the left has done in its treatment of such conservatives as Joseph McCarthy and Edwin Walker. Indeed, for much of what Stormer says, there undoubtedly is another side to the story, for the people who instituted the policies that Stormer criticized probably did not justify them on the grounds of wanting to give the Communists a strategic advantage. Stormer occasionally gives readers a glimpse of their arguments, as when he attempts to refute the contention that the U.S. in the 1950’s would have risked war with Russia had it helped the Hungarian protesters. In some cases, the picture that Stormer paints is incomplete. He criticizes Truman for prohibiting General Douglas MacArthur to bomb the Yalu river, across which Communist China sent supplies to North Korea, but he fails to mention MacArthur’s intention to take over Communist China or (alleged) desire to use the atomic bomb. Stormer is aware of the accusation that the Nicaraguan contras are cut-throats, yet he largely ignores anti-Communist atrocities and focuses on Communist brutality. In addition, the data that Stormer presents may fit into other narratives than some grand plot for Communist world domination. Of course, Communists share many of the same goals as the left and may work with the left in pursuit of those goals, but does that mean that any domestic agitation or social justice measure should be treated as a Communist plot to take over the country? Perhaps they are attempts to work within the system and make it fairer and more receptive to the marginalized. Maybe Stormer was correct that there were psychologists who deemed devotion to far right ideas as neurotic, but does that necessarily mean that they intended to confine all right-wingers to mental institutions?
Overall, though, this book is engaging to read. Stormer offered an economic insight that interested me, in explaining why the U.S. does not experience hyper-inflation, even though it prints lots of money: his answer is that it is because other countries are buying American assets. The quotes that Stormer criticizes are insightful in that they present formidable critiques of traditionalism, yet Stormer makes a legitimate point when he argues that such critiques have no place in public school curricula. Families are imperfect, and there are reasons to question religion, but should students be taught in public schools to question their parents and traditions? Is that not indoctrination? On the other hand, would not treating those institutions as infallible result in an insipid, banal, and even inaccurate education? As was said above, the additions to this book are more religious than the 1964 original, and Stormer offers a rigorous (albeit one-sided) biblical defense for freedom of speech and religion, as well as private property.
I first read None Dare Call It Treason in the sixth grade. Reading it as an adult, I noticed details that escaped me before. There was Karl Marx’s lament that the proletariat he championed actually held to conservative ideas and aspired to be like the bourgeoisie rather than overthrowing it. There was Stormer’s acknowledgement that prominent labor unions were led by staunch anti-Communists, along with his dismissal of wealth inequality through his argument that most Americans own some sort of stock. There was also an ex-Communist’s testimony that, in working for FDR to shape the New Deal, his goal was for FDR to be like Kerensky in Russia, who was replaced by the Bolsheviks. One might wonder how the Communists failed to take over the U.S. before now, if Stormer’s narrative is accurate.
None Dare Call It Treason was a national bestseller in 1964, when conservative Barry Goldwater ran for President. Written and published by John A. Stormer, it professed to reveal Communist infiltration in American institutions. Stormer vigorously argued that American foreign and domestic policy, public education, news media, liberal churches, mental health facilities, unions, and tax-exempt foundations were serving the cause of international Communism. From the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt to Stormer’s own day, Stormer contended, Communists were weakening American resistance to Communism on the foreign and domestic fronts, thereby paving the way for the U.S. to become a Communist country. The U.S. government has made decisions that have undermined national defense, enabled the Communists to advance worldwide, and moved the U.S. towards economic collectivism. Meanwhile, prominent institutions propagandize against free enterprise and the traditional family and demonize anti-Communists in government and the private sector.
Twenty-five years later, it was 1989. Ronald Reagan had just been President, and George H.W. Bush was early in his term. Communism appeared to be collapsing throughout the world, with Glasnost, Perestroika, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. While one might think that this would give an anti-Communist like Stormer cause to rejoice, Stormer remained concerned. For Stormer, the alleged collapse of Communism was a mere ruse, designed to encourage the West to bail out the failing Communist economies. Communists still ruled in the Eastern European countries, and Gorbachev in speeches continued to voice his commitment to socialism and world Communist revolution. On the domestic front, Communists still infiltrated or influenced American institutions. They used government welfare agencies to foment protest and agitation, formed alliances with the left to oppose Reagan’s anti-Communist policies and the Bork nomination, and thwarted the candidacies of anti-Communist Democrats like Gary Hart. Meanwhile, public educational curricula and liberal churches continued to deride the traditional family, Christianity, and morality, all in accordance with Communist ideology. Through all of this, surveillance of domestic Communism was virtually abandoned, as institutions like HUAC became a thing of the past.
Stormer seems to treat Reagan as sincere in his conservative, anti-Communist convictions, but he has reservations about Reagan. As a result to the Iran-Contra affair, staunch anti-Communists like Oliver North have been marginalized within the Reagan Administration or removed from it entirely. Reagan ceased believing that the Soviet Union was an evil empire by his second term, and the arms control agreements that he made with the Soviets gave the Soviets an advantage and failed to live up to Reagan’s proclaimed goal of “trust but verify.” Stormer’s Christian religious convictions deepened between 1964 and 1989, and he came to believe more strongly that spiritual renewal was essential for the defeat of Communism. In light of that, he disapproved of Nancy Reagan’s consultation of astrologers.
This book preserved the vast majority of the 1964 text, while adding over three hundred pages of new material. It slightly altered the 1964 text to remove obsolete information. In the final chapter of the 1964 version, Stormer recommended conservative periodicals, which included Human Events, the Wanderer, and the Dan Smoot Report. In the update, he suggested Human Events and informed readers of its new address. Why he omitted the Wanderer is a mystery to me because it was still around in 2009, when I attended a conservative Catholic church.
Stormer’s book is well-documented. Critics accused Stormer of taking quotes out of context, as Stormer says the left has done in its treatment of such conservatives as Joseph McCarthy and Edwin Walker. Indeed, for much of what Stormer says, there undoubtedly is another side to the story, for the people who instituted the policies that Stormer criticized probably did not justify them on the grounds of wanting to give the Communists a strategic advantage. Stormer occasionally gives readers a glimpse of their arguments, as when he attempts to refute the contention that the U.S. in the 1950’s would have risked war with Russia had it helped the Hungarian protesters. In some cases, the picture that Stormer paints is incomplete. He criticizes Truman for prohibiting General Douglas MacArthur to bomb the Yalu river, across which Communist China sent supplies to North Korea, but he fails to mention MacArthur’s intention to take over Communist China or (alleged) desire to use the atomic bomb. Stormer is aware of the accusation that the Nicaraguan contras are cut-throats, yet he largely ignores anti-Communist atrocities and focuses on Communist brutality. In addition, the data that Stormer presents may fit into other narratives than some grand plot for Communist world domination. Of course, Communists share many of the same goals as the left and may work with the left in pursuit of those goals, but does that mean that any domestic agitation or social justice measure should be treated as a Communist plot to take over the country? Perhaps they are attempts to work within the system and make it fairer and more receptive to the marginalized. Maybe Stormer was correct that there were psychologists who deemed devotion to far right ideas as neurotic, but does that necessarily mean that they intended to confine all right-wingers to mental institutions?
Overall, though, this book is engaging to read. Stormer offered an economic insight that interested me, in explaining why the U.S. does not experience hyper-inflation, even though it prints lots of money: his answer is that it is because other countries are buying American assets. The quotes that Stormer criticizes are insightful in that they present formidable critiques of traditionalism, yet Stormer makes a legitimate point when he argues that such critiques have no place in public school curricula. Families are imperfect, and there are reasons to question religion, but should students be taught in public schools to question their parents and traditions? Is that not indoctrination? On the other hand, would not treating those institutions as infallible result in an insipid, banal, and even inaccurate education? As was said above, the additions to this book are more religious than the 1964 original, and Stormer offers a rigorous (albeit one-sided) biblical defense for freedom of speech and religion, as well as private property.
I first read None Dare Call It Treason in the sixth grade. Reading it as an adult, I noticed details that escaped me before. There was Karl Marx’s lament that the proletariat he championed actually held to conservative ideas and aspired to be like the bourgeoisie rather than overthrowing it. There was Stormer’s acknowledgement that prominent labor unions were led by staunch anti-Communists, along with his dismissal of wealth inequality through his argument that most Americans own some sort of stock. There was also an ex-Communist’s testimony that, in working for FDR to shape the New Deal, his goal was for FDR to be like Kerensky in Russia, who was replaced by the Bolsheviks. One might wonder how the Communists failed to take over the U.S. before now, if Stormer’s narrative is accurate.
Tuesday, April 13, 2021
Defiant Tucker Defends His Discussion Of Demographic Change, Exposes ADL Hypocrisy
“Tucker’s bravest moment of the segment was challenging the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL called for his firing for criticizing demographic replacement. The Fox News host read on air an ADL post that criticized demographic replacement… in Israel. ‘It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory,’ the blog stated.”
Monday, April 12, 2021
Book Write-Up: Heaven, by Randy Alcorn
Randy Alcorn. Heaven. Tyndale, 2004. See here to purchase the book.
In Heaven, Randy Alcorn fields questions about what heaven will be like. “Heaven” here refers to the hope and destination of Christians: where they will go after they die. Immediately after death, their souls go to heaven, where God is. After the eschatological resurrection, God will bring heaven to earth, and the saints will be there in glorified physical bodies. Alcorn extensively consults and engages the Bible as he addresses the topic of heaven.
Here are some thoughts:
A. I grew up in an offshoot of Herbert W. Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God (WCG), and, in this item, I will use Armstrongite teachings on the hope of Christians as a point of comparison with those of Alcorn. There are similarities and differences. Armstrongites mocked common Christian conceptions of heaven, as if most Christians taught that people would be stringing a harp for all eternity while sitting on a cloud. What kind of hope is that? Armstrongites taught that, instead, Christians would be divine beings with responsibilities. They would be creating and ruling planets and working on projects. Alcorn, too, rejects the idea that Christians will be sitting on a cloud stringing a harp. Alcorn also believes that resurrected Christians will be ruling, since there are a plethora of biblical passages that indicate that (i.e. Luke 19:17; II Timothy 2:12; Revelation 2:26); maybe they will rule each other, Alcorn proposes, or God will create other beings for them to rule. Alcorn does not think that the saints will be divine beings, however, but will have physical bodies. This brings me to the next item.
B. Alcorn seems to maintain that the resurrected saints will depend on food for nourishment and sustenance. Revelation 22 depicts people in the new heavens and the new earth partaking of the tree of life, echoing the tree of life in Genesis 3. Just as Adam and Eve partook of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden to live, Alcorn contends, so will humans eat from the tree of life to live in the new heavens and the new earth. Revelation 7:16-17 states that people in the new heavens and new earth will not hunger and thirst, but Alcorn does not interpret that to mean that people will not get hungry or thirsty, but rather than, when their bodies do hunger, they will have an abundance of food to eat. Alcorn does not appear to think that the resurrected bodies of the saints will possess inherent immortality. He even expresses doubt that the resurrected bodies of the saints will be exactly like the risen body of Jesus, which was able to walk through walls and disappear (Luke 24:31; John 20:26). A number of scholars (i.e., Richard Hays), however, interpret I Corinthians 15 to be saying that the resurrected bodies will not be animated by the soul but rather by God’s Holy Spirit: that arguably implies that the resurrection bodies will differ from natural bodies and will possess immortality because they are animated by a different principle. In addition, in light of Alcorn’s highly physical conception of resurrection life, how would Alcorn interpret Jesus’s statement that the resurrected will be unable to die because they will be like the angels (Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:36)? Alcorn does well to highlight that the Bible contains physical presentations of eschatological paradise, especially in the prophets; the New Testament, as Alcorn argues, echoes that and maintains that God will not give up on the earth but instead will renew it (Acts 3:21). The Bible does depict physical, flesh-and-blood people in eschatological paradise, but one can make the case that it also presents people with inherent immortality, who shine as the sun (Daniel 12:3; Matthew 13:43). Alcorn chooses to focus on the former, but some hold these two concepts together in other ways. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, think that there will be saints who will have immortal spiritual bodies, but that there will be others who will have physical bodies in paradise.
C. Alcorn takes the Bible’s depictions of heaven and eschatological paradise literally, and he attempts to harmonize them when they seem to contradict each other. For example, will people eat meat in the new heavens and the new earth? On the one hand, Isaiah 25:6 depicts an eschatological feast on the best of meats, and Ezekiel 47:9-10 holds that fishing will exist in the time of eschatological paradise. On the other hand, Revelation 21:4 affirms that there shall be no more death, and Alcorn interprets that to mean no more animal death, not just no more human death. Isaiah 65:25 states that animals shall not hurt and destroy, and Alcorn states: “We’re told animals’ eating habits will change—-why not ours?” (page 296). Alcorn proposes that people might eat meat “that doesn’t require death—-something that tastes better but isn’t animal flesh” (page 296). Alcorn deserves credit for offering a solution, but many might understandably see his resolution as a stretch. A rabbinics professor told me a while back that the rabbis wrestled with the apparent contradictions among the biblical depictions of eschatological paradise, and some concluded that they are not to be interpreted literally.
D. Will people learn in heaven? Alcorn thinks so. This will be the case in the intermediate heaven, for saints in heaven in Revelation 6:10 ask God a question, indicating that they do not know everything. But does not I Corinthians 13:12 affirm that saints know in part now but will know in full in the eschaton? Alcorn states that saints will see God clearly but not comprehensively, and he argues that the Greek word in I Corinthians 13:12 that is often translated as knowing fully, epiginosko, does not refer to comprehensive knowledge. Indeed, I would like to think that God can never be known fully, for there are biblical passages about God’s thoughts being deep (Psalm 139:17; Romans 11:33-34). But Alcorn’s case would have been stronger had he addressed I Corinthians 13:8, which appears to state that love will last forever, whereas knowledge will pass away. Is Paul saying this because people will not be teaching each other in the eschaton, since they will know everything? Is there an alternative way to interpret this passage?
E. Many Christians have argued that Christians will be given a mind-wipe in the eschaton, since Isaiah 65:17 states that people will not remember the former things. Some find comfort in this if they have unsaved friends or loved ones: will they enjoy heaven while their unsaved friends and loved ones are burning in hell? No, some Christians, respond, since they will forget their friends and loved ones! Alcorn disagrees with this interpretation. He points to Revelation 12:12-14, which refers to memorials to the twelve tribes and apostles in the new earth; memorials imply memory of what took place on the old earth. Not remembering the former things refers to comfort, and comfort implies memories of the bad things: “If we had no memory of the bad things, why would we need comfort? How would we feel it?” (page 331). Alcorn’s interpretation makes sense to me, for I have long wondered why people are on earth building character for heaven, when they will forget everything in heaven, anyway. It makes more sense that the afterlife will build on this life. Will the saved know about their friends and loved ones in hell, then? Alcorn believes so, but he says that the saints will have an appreciation for why their friends and loved ones are in hell, and that what made the friends and loved ones good (on some level) on earth will be erased in hell. This statement on hell, along with others by Alcorn, was disturbing, but this is a struggle that I have long had with Christianity, period.
F. Alcorn argues that heaven will be a place of work and social interaction. What about people who do not want to do these things? At times, Alcorn is like a drill sergeant: get used to it! That’s what it will be like! Most of the time, though, he empathetically engages why people might feel that way and reassures them that their inadequacies and fallenness on earth will not continue into heaven.
G. Alcorn’s book is informative about the history of interpretation regarding heaven. Medieval Christians viewed heaven in spiritual and intellectual terms while dismissing the possibility of physical pleasures there. John Calvin did not believe that humans in heaven would interact with each other, for they would be enamored and preoccupied with their vision of God.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
In Heaven, Randy Alcorn fields questions about what heaven will be like. “Heaven” here refers to the hope and destination of Christians: where they will go after they die. Immediately after death, their souls go to heaven, where God is. After the eschatological resurrection, God will bring heaven to earth, and the saints will be there in glorified physical bodies. Alcorn extensively consults and engages the Bible as he addresses the topic of heaven.
Here are some thoughts:
A. I grew up in an offshoot of Herbert W. Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God (WCG), and, in this item, I will use Armstrongite teachings on the hope of Christians as a point of comparison with those of Alcorn. There are similarities and differences. Armstrongites mocked common Christian conceptions of heaven, as if most Christians taught that people would be stringing a harp for all eternity while sitting on a cloud. What kind of hope is that? Armstrongites taught that, instead, Christians would be divine beings with responsibilities. They would be creating and ruling planets and working on projects. Alcorn, too, rejects the idea that Christians will be sitting on a cloud stringing a harp. Alcorn also believes that resurrected Christians will be ruling, since there are a plethora of biblical passages that indicate that (i.e. Luke 19:17; II Timothy 2:12; Revelation 2:26); maybe they will rule each other, Alcorn proposes, or God will create other beings for them to rule. Alcorn does not think that the saints will be divine beings, however, but will have physical bodies. This brings me to the next item.
B. Alcorn seems to maintain that the resurrected saints will depend on food for nourishment and sustenance. Revelation 22 depicts people in the new heavens and the new earth partaking of the tree of life, echoing the tree of life in Genesis 3. Just as Adam and Eve partook of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden to live, Alcorn contends, so will humans eat from the tree of life to live in the new heavens and the new earth. Revelation 7:16-17 states that people in the new heavens and new earth will not hunger and thirst, but Alcorn does not interpret that to mean that people will not get hungry or thirsty, but rather than, when their bodies do hunger, they will have an abundance of food to eat. Alcorn does not appear to think that the resurrected bodies of the saints will possess inherent immortality. He even expresses doubt that the resurrected bodies of the saints will be exactly like the risen body of Jesus, which was able to walk through walls and disappear (Luke 24:31; John 20:26). A number of scholars (i.e., Richard Hays), however, interpret I Corinthians 15 to be saying that the resurrected bodies will not be animated by the soul but rather by God’s Holy Spirit: that arguably implies that the resurrection bodies will differ from natural bodies and will possess immortality because they are animated by a different principle. In addition, in light of Alcorn’s highly physical conception of resurrection life, how would Alcorn interpret Jesus’s statement that the resurrected will be unable to die because they will be like the angels (Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:36)? Alcorn does well to highlight that the Bible contains physical presentations of eschatological paradise, especially in the prophets; the New Testament, as Alcorn argues, echoes that and maintains that God will not give up on the earth but instead will renew it (Acts 3:21). The Bible does depict physical, flesh-and-blood people in eschatological paradise, but one can make the case that it also presents people with inherent immortality, who shine as the sun (Daniel 12:3; Matthew 13:43). Alcorn chooses to focus on the former, but some hold these two concepts together in other ways. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, think that there will be saints who will have immortal spiritual bodies, but that there will be others who will have physical bodies in paradise.
C. Alcorn takes the Bible’s depictions of heaven and eschatological paradise literally, and he attempts to harmonize them when they seem to contradict each other. For example, will people eat meat in the new heavens and the new earth? On the one hand, Isaiah 25:6 depicts an eschatological feast on the best of meats, and Ezekiel 47:9-10 holds that fishing will exist in the time of eschatological paradise. On the other hand, Revelation 21:4 affirms that there shall be no more death, and Alcorn interprets that to mean no more animal death, not just no more human death. Isaiah 65:25 states that animals shall not hurt and destroy, and Alcorn states: “We’re told animals’ eating habits will change—-why not ours?” (page 296). Alcorn proposes that people might eat meat “that doesn’t require death—-something that tastes better but isn’t animal flesh” (page 296). Alcorn deserves credit for offering a solution, but many might understandably see his resolution as a stretch. A rabbinics professor told me a while back that the rabbis wrestled with the apparent contradictions among the biblical depictions of eschatological paradise, and some concluded that they are not to be interpreted literally.
D. Will people learn in heaven? Alcorn thinks so. This will be the case in the intermediate heaven, for saints in heaven in Revelation 6:10 ask God a question, indicating that they do not know everything. But does not I Corinthians 13:12 affirm that saints know in part now but will know in full in the eschaton? Alcorn states that saints will see God clearly but not comprehensively, and he argues that the Greek word in I Corinthians 13:12 that is often translated as knowing fully, epiginosko, does not refer to comprehensive knowledge. Indeed, I would like to think that God can never be known fully, for there are biblical passages about God’s thoughts being deep (Psalm 139:17; Romans 11:33-34). But Alcorn’s case would have been stronger had he addressed I Corinthians 13:8, which appears to state that love will last forever, whereas knowledge will pass away. Is Paul saying this because people will not be teaching each other in the eschaton, since they will know everything? Is there an alternative way to interpret this passage?
E. Many Christians have argued that Christians will be given a mind-wipe in the eschaton, since Isaiah 65:17 states that people will not remember the former things. Some find comfort in this if they have unsaved friends or loved ones: will they enjoy heaven while their unsaved friends and loved ones are burning in hell? No, some Christians, respond, since they will forget their friends and loved ones! Alcorn disagrees with this interpretation. He points to Revelation 12:12-14, which refers to memorials to the twelve tribes and apostles in the new earth; memorials imply memory of what took place on the old earth. Not remembering the former things refers to comfort, and comfort implies memories of the bad things: “If we had no memory of the bad things, why would we need comfort? How would we feel it?” (page 331). Alcorn’s interpretation makes sense to me, for I have long wondered why people are on earth building character for heaven, when they will forget everything in heaven, anyway. It makes more sense that the afterlife will build on this life. Will the saved know about their friends and loved ones in hell, then? Alcorn believes so, but he says that the saints will have an appreciation for why their friends and loved ones are in hell, and that what made the friends and loved ones good (on some level) on earth will be erased in hell. This statement on hell, along with others by Alcorn, was disturbing, but this is a struggle that I have long had with Christianity, period.
F. Alcorn argues that heaven will be a place of work and social interaction. What about people who do not want to do these things? At times, Alcorn is like a drill sergeant: get used to it! That’s what it will be like! Most of the time, though, he empathetically engages why people might feel that way and reassures them that their inadequacies and fallenness on earth will not continue into heaven.
G. Alcorn’s book is informative about the history of interpretation regarding heaven. Medieval Christians viewed heaven in spiritual and intellectual terms while dismissing the possibility of physical pleasures there. John Calvin did not believe that humans in heaven would interact with each other, for they would be enamored and preoccupied with their vision of God.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
Sunday, April 11, 2021
Book Write-Up: The Problem of the Old Testament, by Duane A. Garrett
Duane A. Garrett. The Problem of the Old Testament: Hermeneutical, Schematic and Theological Approaches. IVP Academic, 2020. Go here to purchase the book.
Duane A. Garrett is professor of Old Testament interpretation and biblical theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Garrett observes that the Old Testament poses a problem for Christians. Garrett describes the problem with three propositions: the Old Testament is hard to define, to read, and to reconcile with the New.
Isaiah 7:14 plays a key role in this book. Matthew 1:23 applies the text to the virgin birth of Jesus, but, within its immediate context, the passage appears to relate to Isaiah’s own time. Was Matthew misinterpreting the verse? A similar problem occurs with Hosea 11:1: Matthew 2:15 relates it to Jesus coming out of Egypt when he was a child, when the passage obviously speaks about Israel’s exodus from Egypt.
Garrett addresses other problems as well. What are Christians to do with Old Testament laws? Which ones should they obey, and which are they under no obligation to obey? Since the Old Testament was for Jews, how exactly does it pertain to Gentiles? Garrett also discusses the scholarly attempts, many of them unsatisfying, to seek some common religious or theological theme that pervades the books of the Old Testament. Things are not that neat, as Garrett observes.
Garrett dismantles attempts by Christians, ancient and modern, to resolve these issues. Alexandrian allegorism, Antiochian literalism, sensus plenior, dispensationalism, covenant theology, reader response, Sailhamer, canonical criticism—-none of them receives Garrett’s mercy! Garrett proceeds, with some trepidation, to offer his own model. He admits that not everyone will find his model satisfactory, and he acknowledges in a few places that this book may need a few sequels.
What are some of Garrett’s solutions? Let’s start with the Old Testament law. Garrett finds wanting the Reformed distinction among moral, ceremonial, and civil laws, with the moral laws alone being obligatory for Christians. The New Testament knows nothing of such distinctions, Garrett argues, and the Old Testament itself does not divide them up neatly. Garrett also struggles, somewhat, with the question of who is under the Old Testament law: Paul seems to think only Israel was, yet his model of salvation appears to presume that everyone is subject to the law’s authority and condemnation. Rather than distinguishing among the laws, Garrett proposes identifying different functions of the law.
Another point that Garrett makes is that the Old Testament leaves some threads unresolved, whereas the New Testament resolves them. God promises Abram that all nations shall be blessed through Abram’s seed (Genesis 12:3; 22:18), but the Old Testament fails to specify how. The New does so by identifying the seed as Christ, who brings spiritual blessing to the Gentiles.
According to Garrett, the Old Testament law lacks provision for divine forgiveness. The sin and guilt offerings relate to ceremonial impurity and to unintentional transgressions, not intentional ones. God could still show mercy in the Old Testament, but that was unrelated to the law. Ultimately, forgiveness of sins comes through Christ.
Analogy and recapitulation are prominent in Garrett’s attempt to explain the New Testament’s usage of Old Testament passages. When I Peter 2:10 relates Hosea 1:10 to Gentile Christians, the author of I Peter is not suggesting that Hosea had the Gentile Christians in mind. Rather, I Peter 2:10 is drawing an analogy: just as God made the paganistic, immoral Israelites his people, so God did for the paganistic, immoral Gentiles who became believers.
Regarding recapitulation, Garrett contends that Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew recapitulates Old Testament Israel. Like Israel, Jesus in Matthew comes out of Egypt, is tempted in the wilderness, and enters the Jordan. Matthew’s application of Hosea 11:1 to Jesus fits this. What is more, Hosea himself vacillates between the people and the king of Israel, so Matthew continues that trajectory.
In discussing Joel, Garrett maintains that the “day of the LORD” in Joel can have multiple applications. It relates to Joel’s time, as the term “day of the LORD” throughout the Old Testament prophets pertains to a number of historical manifestations of God’s judgment, yet it also has eschatological significance. The notion that history can repeat itself occurs in the prophets, as they apply events of Israel’s history to new situations.
Another problem Garrett addresses is how Christians should interpret Old Testament eschatological expectations of Israel’s exaltation and paradise. His conclusion is that the Old Testament prophets portray “the new earth using terms an ancient Israelite could identify with, giving a vivid but not a literal portrayal of a real future” (page 165).
Garrett also identifies allusions within the Old Testament, as well as allusions that the New Testament makes to the Old. Within the Old Testament, Jacob’s headstone recurs, as does the Sinai theophany. Garrett’s point here may be that the Old Testament is not a collection of disconnected writings but presents a larger and coherent narrative. Regarding the New Testament, Garrett argues that the transfiguration, and Peter’s proposal to build booths, relates to Jonah’s dwelling in a booth as he awaited God’s judgment on Nineveh.
This book certainly is informative, especially as Garrett surveys the historic Christian attempts to argue that Isaiah 7:14 was actually a prophecy about Jesus, even in its original context. Garrett’s exegetical moves are also interesting, as when he distinguishes the worm that shall not die in Isaiah 66:24 from Jesus’s teaching on hell.
Garrett’s treatment of the law is helpful, as it addresses questions that I and other Christians and scholars (especially of the New Perspective) have: how can Paul treat the Torah as the opposite of grace and forgiveness, when the Torah itself has pathways to divine forgiveness? And what did Jesus bring that was not already present in the Torah? Garrett’s answer, as noted above, is that the Torah lacks pathways to divine forgiveness. There may be something to that, but I have some nagging reservations. Garrett says that the sacrifices only forgave unintentional sins, not intentional ones, whereas Jesus brings forgiveness for intentional ones. The Epistle to the Hebrews, however, seems to draw an analogy between Jesus and the sin offering and to assert that Jesus died for unintentional sins, whereas the ultimate intentional sin (leaving the faith) receives no forgiveness.
On some occasions, I thought that Garrett, with all his knowledge, should know better. He says that Mesopotamian courts may have used the Code of Hammurabi, when it has been argued that there is no indication in their records that they did so.
Whether or not one finds Garrett’s solutions to be satisfying, they are a serious attempt to grapple with the problem of the Old Testament. Garrett is honest about what he finds unconvincing in other approaches. He wrestles with problems, even if some of his solutions fail to resolve all of their loose ends. And he attempts to support his positions with the biblical text.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
Saturday, April 10, 2021
Monday, April 5, 2021
Book Write-Up: The Amateur, by Edward Klein
Edward Klein. The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House. Regnery, 2012.
Edward Klein argues in 2012 that Barack Obama is an amateur President.
Here are some observations and thoughts about this book:
A. Klein’s books have a reputation for being juicy and gossipy. I wanted to read this book because I heard that Klein described a scene in which President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disagree on Benghazi, with Hillary warning that Obama would not be able to make it look like anything less than a terrorist attack. That scene actually is not in this book, though it may be in another book that Klein wrote. In terms of how juicy and gossipy this book is, my answer is “not very.” There are a few interesting details: Bill Clinton in 2012 was encouraging Hillary to run against Obama in the Democratic primaries. Overall, though, the book contains the usual criticisms that people have made of Barack Obama, from across the political spectrum: that he is introverted, is not good at building and sustaining relationships and alliances with people, is a poor communicator (albeit a rousing orator), and (in contrast with John F. Kennedy) is unwilling to learn from others so he can improve his job performance. Add to that other criticisms: that there is little rhyme or reason to Obama’s inconsistent policies and stances, that Obama is more of a radical leftist than he lets on, and that Obama has a Messiah complex. You also have a behind-the-scenes look at how key figures are, according to anonymous sources: Michelle dislikes Oprah’s influence, the ups and downs in the Obama marriage, etc.
B. The book contains some contradictions, which may exist because reality itself is complicated. First, on the one hand, Klein depicts Obama as more of a radical leftist than he lets on. Klein contends that Obama’s stance as a unifier and transpartisan in 2008 was all for show, cooked up by David Axelrod. According to Klein, Obama’s relationship with his controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright was closer in his younger years than Obama implies. Obama also confided to his physician that he supports a single-payer health care system. On the other hand, Klein presents Obama as pursuing policies with little rhyme or reason. Obama decided to overthrow Qadaffi in Libya for no discernible reason, even as he withdraws America’s influence from the world. His immigration policy is a mixture of amnesty and ruthless deportation. And he has been all over the map on political and cultural issues. This differs from being a committed radical leftist ideologue. Second, on the one hand, Michelle Obama is skeptical about the usefulness of politics in improving people’s conditions. This goes back to her childhood, when her father was a politician in Chicago, yet the needs of the African-American community (i.e., having its snow plowed in the winter and its garbage picked up) were deliberately ignored by the political establishment. On the other hand, Klein seems to argue that Michelle’s portrayal of herself as skeptical about the political process is merely a ruse and that she actually exercises a lot of political influence over her husband. Third, and this is not a contradiction within Klein’s book, but it is a tension between what Klein says and what others have said, there is the issue of Obama’s popularity back when he was a student. Libertarian commentator Wayne Allyn Root speculated that Obama was not actually a student at Columbia because Root was a student at Columbia back when Obama supposedly was, and Root does not remember him. The standard response to that is that Obama was introverted and kept to himself, and that is why Root does not remember him. Maybe, but, according to Klein, Obama was quite charismatic and popular at Harvard Law School.
C. Klein has a chapter about Obama’s hostility towards Israel, and Klein mentions the anti-Semitism in some of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. That makes me think about the stance of the Alt-right and white nationalists towards Obama. I cannot generalize, since there are as many different opinions among white nationalists towards Obama as there are white nationalists. Still, I can share some of my impressions, based on my reading. On the one hand, white nationalists can find things that they like about Obama. White nationalists are anti-Israel, anti-political establishment, anti-illegal immigration, and anti-war (or non-interventionist). Obama did not let Israel get everything she wants, challenged the establishment in 2008, was pretty ruthless in deporting illegal immigrants who committed crimes, and was tepid about pursuing regime change in Syria. On the other hand, there are things that white nationalists obviously disliked. Obama criticized the police for controversial shootings rather than giving them the benefit of a doubt, was more interventionist in foreign wars and supportive of amnesty than white nationalists preferred, and enforced cultural liberalism (i.e., forcing Christians to accept homosexuality), which white nationalists consider to be an agenda of Jewish power.
D. Klein states that Obama's economic agenda is for there to be a predominance of business monopolies and oligopolies, which would be unionized and provide benefits to their workers. Whether this is Obama's agenda is difficult to say. Obama as President touted himself as an advocate of small business, and, while critics maintained that Obamacare kept small businesses from expanding, it did attempt (through exchanges) to provide health insurance to people who did not work for large corporations. The agenda itself is intriguing, though. If you cannot beat big capitalism, at least make it more humanitarian. And at least companies, not government, would be providing more of the benefits.
E. What do I make of Klein’s assessment of Barack Obama? Here, let’s address governance, then ideology. As far as governance goes, Obama was not that much worse than George W. Bush and Donald Trump. All of these Presidents have had to deal with gridlock and tried to work their way around it, bypassing the need to work with the other side. Obama may have had a Messiah complex when he first entered office, thinking his oratory and dynamic personality would make him different from other politicians, but there is nothing wrong with that kind of initial idealism: why would he run for office if he did not think there was something special about himself that could bring about significant change? I am sure that his Messiah complex was tempered over the eight years of his Presidency. As far as ideology goes, my opinion would actually improve of Barack Obama if he embraced Jeremiah Wright’s stance on 9/11. 9/11 was horrible, but Wright was right to say that America causes so much suffering and death around the world and is indignant when people bring that suffering and death to its own shores (blowback). At the same time, Klein does well to ask what the presupposition of American foreign policy will be if it is not a commitment to democracy and free markets around the world: what would fill that void? And would what fills that void be beneficial to people?
Klein’s book is also noteworthy because of the people Klein interviews, including Jeremiah Wright and journalists who once were enthusiastic about Obama yet had their expectations tempered in the course of his Presidency.
Edward Klein argues in 2012 that Barack Obama is an amateur President.
Here are some observations and thoughts about this book:
A. Klein’s books have a reputation for being juicy and gossipy. I wanted to read this book because I heard that Klein described a scene in which President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disagree on Benghazi, with Hillary warning that Obama would not be able to make it look like anything less than a terrorist attack. That scene actually is not in this book, though it may be in another book that Klein wrote. In terms of how juicy and gossipy this book is, my answer is “not very.” There are a few interesting details: Bill Clinton in 2012 was encouraging Hillary to run against Obama in the Democratic primaries. Overall, though, the book contains the usual criticisms that people have made of Barack Obama, from across the political spectrum: that he is introverted, is not good at building and sustaining relationships and alliances with people, is a poor communicator (albeit a rousing orator), and (in contrast with John F. Kennedy) is unwilling to learn from others so he can improve his job performance. Add to that other criticisms: that there is little rhyme or reason to Obama’s inconsistent policies and stances, that Obama is more of a radical leftist than he lets on, and that Obama has a Messiah complex. You also have a behind-the-scenes look at how key figures are, according to anonymous sources: Michelle dislikes Oprah’s influence, the ups and downs in the Obama marriage, etc.
B. The book contains some contradictions, which may exist because reality itself is complicated. First, on the one hand, Klein depicts Obama as more of a radical leftist than he lets on. Klein contends that Obama’s stance as a unifier and transpartisan in 2008 was all for show, cooked up by David Axelrod. According to Klein, Obama’s relationship with his controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright was closer in his younger years than Obama implies. Obama also confided to his physician that he supports a single-payer health care system. On the other hand, Klein presents Obama as pursuing policies with little rhyme or reason. Obama decided to overthrow Qadaffi in Libya for no discernible reason, even as he withdraws America’s influence from the world. His immigration policy is a mixture of amnesty and ruthless deportation. And he has been all over the map on political and cultural issues. This differs from being a committed radical leftist ideologue. Second, on the one hand, Michelle Obama is skeptical about the usefulness of politics in improving people’s conditions. This goes back to her childhood, when her father was a politician in Chicago, yet the needs of the African-American community (i.e., having its snow plowed in the winter and its garbage picked up) were deliberately ignored by the political establishment. On the other hand, Klein seems to argue that Michelle’s portrayal of herself as skeptical about the political process is merely a ruse and that she actually exercises a lot of political influence over her husband. Third, and this is not a contradiction within Klein’s book, but it is a tension between what Klein says and what others have said, there is the issue of Obama’s popularity back when he was a student. Libertarian commentator Wayne Allyn Root speculated that Obama was not actually a student at Columbia because Root was a student at Columbia back when Obama supposedly was, and Root does not remember him. The standard response to that is that Obama was introverted and kept to himself, and that is why Root does not remember him. Maybe, but, according to Klein, Obama was quite charismatic and popular at Harvard Law School.
C. Klein has a chapter about Obama’s hostility towards Israel, and Klein mentions the anti-Semitism in some of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. That makes me think about the stance of the Alt-right and white nationalists towards Obama. I cannot generalize, since there are as many different opinions among white nationalists towards Obama as there are white nationalists. Still, I can share some of my impressions, based on my reading. On the one hand, white nationalists can find things that they like about Obama. White nationalists are anti-Israel, anti-political establishment, anti-illegal immigration, and anti-war (or non-interventionist). Obama did not let Israel get everything she wants, challenged the establishment in 2008, was pretty ruthless in deporting illegal immigrants who committed crimes, and was tepid about pursuing regime change in Syria. On the other hand, there are things that white nationalists obviously disliked. Obama criticized the police for controversial shootings rather than giving them the benefit of a doubt, was more interventionist in foreign wars and supportive of amnesty than white nationalists preferred, and enforced cultural liberalism (i.e., forcing Christians to accept homosexuality), which white nationalists consider to be an agenda of Jewish power.
D. Klein states that Obama's economic agenda is for there to be a predominance of business monopolies and oligopolies, which would be unionized and provide benefits to their workers. Whether this is Obama's agenda is difficult to say. Obama as President touted himself as an advocate of small business, and, while critics maintained that Obamacare kept small businesses from expanding, it did attempt (through exchanges) to provide health insurance to people who did not work for large corporations. The agenda itself is intriguing, though. If you cannot beat big capitalism, at least make it more humanitarian. And at least companies, not government, would be providing more of the benefits.
E. What do I make of Klein’s assessment of Barack Obama? Here, let’s address governance, then ideology. As far as governance goes, Obama was not that much worse than George W. Bush and Donald Trump. All of these Presidents have had to deal with gridlock and tried to work their way around it, bypassing the need to work with the other side. Obama may have had a Messiah complex when he first entered office, thinking his oratory and dynamic personality would make him different from other politicians, but there is nothing wrong with that kind of initial idealism: why would he run for office if he did not think there was something special about himself that could bring about significant change? I am sure that his Messiah complex was tempered over the eight years of his Presidency. As far as ideology goes, my opinion would actually improve of Barack Obama if he embraced Jeremiah Wright’s stance on 9/11. 9/11 was horrible, but Wright was right to say that America causes so much suffering and death around the world and is indignant when people bring that suffering and death to its own shores (blowback). At the same time, Klein does well to ask what the presupposition of American foreign policy will be if it is not a commitment to democracy and free markets around the world: what would fill that void? And would what fills that void be beneficial to people?
Klein’s book is also noteworthy because of the people Klein interviews, including Jeremiah Wright and journalists who once were enthusiastic about Obama yet had their expectations tempered in the course of his Presidency.