Posts
At church this morning, the pastor preached about Mark 10:46-52.
Jesus, his disciples, and a large crowd are departing from Jericho, and a
blind beggar on the roadside calls out to Jesus, “Jesus, Son of David,
have mercy on me!” People tell the blind man to be quiet, but the blind
man cries out more loudly, “Son of David! Have mercy on me!” Jesus
tells his disciples to call the blind man to him, and they do so, while
offering the blind man words of comfort. The blind man hastens to meet
Jesus, and Jesus asks the blind man what he wants Jesus to do for him.
The blind man responds that he wants to see, and Jesus says, “Go: your
faith has made you well.” The blind man immediately can see again, and
he follows Jesus on the way.
(My summary of the story draws from whatever translation my church’s bulletin was using.)
The pastor was talking about how blindness in those days was
considered to be God’s punishment for sin, and so, if a person were
blind and continued to be blind, people concluded that the blind person
must be on the outs with God. Moreover, people with disabilities were
excluded from the Temple and the worship that occurred there. The
pastor said that a blind person could learn really fast that one can
experience God outside of a physical building. And, indeed, the blind
man in the story has keen spiritual insights. He calls Jesus the Son of
David, which may indicate that he recognizes that Jesus is the
Messiah. He believes that Jesus can heal him. What’s more, he is
tenacious in crying out to Jesus for mercy, for he does so even when
people tell him to shut up. And, when Jesus tells the blind man to go
after the blind man is healed, the once blind man instead chooses to
come: he follows Jesus.
The pastor was talking about the importance of rehumanizing the
dehumanized, which means respecting the humanity of people whose
humanity society does not generally respect. The pastor also talked
about acknowledging the spiritual insights of people outside of the
church and inviting them to church. I remember when I was googling my
pastor’s name when I learned that he would soon be our new pastor, and I
found an interview in which he said that there is something special
about the spiritual insights of the poor. He may have had something
like that in mind, among other things, when he delivered his sermon this
morning.
There are historical questions that occur in my mind. Did ancient
Judaism believe that the blind were blind because they were being
punished by God? Obviously, that was a belief that was out there. In
John 9:2, Jesus’ disciples asked Jesus who sinned—-the blind man or his
parents—-that the man was born blind. There is the Jewish story of a
man named Tobit, a righteous man who became blind, and whose healing God
arranged. Even righteous Tobit felt that his blindness may have been
God punishing him for his sins (Tobit 3:5).
Did ancient Judaism exclude the blind from the Temple? Leviticus 21
prohibits blind sons of the high priest Aaron from offering food to God,
even though they can eat from the sacrifice. In II Samuel 5, David’s
attack on the blind and lame in taking Jerusalem from the Jebusites
serves as an etiology for the rule that the lame and the blind cannot
come into the house. According to The Able Bodied: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies,
by atheist biblical scholar Hector Avalos, Sarah Melcher, and Jeremy
Schipper, “According to Johannes Renger, in ancient Mesopotamia people
afflicted with a disease or a disability would often end up working at
the temple, because their immediate family could no longer take care of
them” (page 81); a different view on how things should be done appears
in parts of the Hebrew Bible, however. There is at least one place,
though, where a blind man blesses in God’s name: Isaac in the Book of
Genesis was blind on account of his old age, and he blessed Jacob and
Esau; yet, that was prior to the time of the Temple.
Did ancient Judaism believe that one could experience God outside of
the Temple? Well, eventually the Jews tried to do so, when they were in
exile. But Temples were considered to be important in the ancient
world.
At the same time, the Hebrew Bible does teach compassion for the
blind. Leviticus 19:14 prohibits putting a stumbling-block before the
blind. Deuteronomy 27:18 curses the one who makes the blind person
wander out of the way. Job in Job 29:15 says that he was eyes to the
blind. Isaiah 35:5 promises that, in the time of God’s restoration, the
eyes of the blind shall see.
Was Jesus challenging the system and assumptions that God himself set
up in the Hebrew Bible? That is a good question. Perhaps, in the
Hebrew Bible, God could punish people with blindness, but that did not
mean that everyone who had blindness was being punished by God. I
should also note, again, that, in Leviticus 21, the blind priests are
not thoroughly excluded from priestly duties, for they can still eat the
meat of the sacrifice.
Loving the marginalized can be easier said than done, at least for
me. If I were to see a homeless man mumbling to himself on the street, I
would be very hesitant to engage him, and I think that is wise on my
part. Still, we should care about the marginalized, and if we feel that
our abilities to do so are limited on the individual level (i.e., how
exactly would I help a homeless man mumbling to himself on the street?
I’d have no idea what to do!), then we should act on the communal level,
getting different people’s wisdom, experience, and resources in trying
to help.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
Book Write-Up: The Photograph, by Beverly Lewis
Beverly Lewis. The Photograph. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2015. See here to buy the book.
This is the first book by Beverly Lewis that I have ever read. She writes a lot of Christian fiction about the Amish. In The Photograph, Lily Esch abruptly leaves her Amish family and her Amish community after the death of her parents, and that worries her sister Eva. Meanwhile, an Amish buggy-maker named Jed is traveling by train from Ohio and finds a photograph of an Amish woman with make-up looking into the camera. The photo is inside of a copy of Little Women. Jed is not only puzzled by the boldness of the woman in the photograph, since Amish people are not allowed to get their picture taken, but he is also drawn to the notes in the copy of Little Women—-their sensitivity, longing, and wisdom. Jed himself is trying to move on after the death of his fiancee, who loved books just like he did. While many women are attracted to Jed, they are not exactly what he is looking for in a spouse. Jed is reluctant to fall in love again, until he meets Eva, thinking that she is the woman in the photograph.
This book did not sweep me off my feet, for it was a romance novel, and the ending was rather predictable. Still, it was a delightful read. It even had an endearing sub-plot about an Amish man named Omar who wanted to register to vote because he was enamored with Ronald Reagan, but his Amish community discouraged voting because God’s people are not supposed to be a part of this world.
The book also painted an interesting picture of Amish religion. One Amish person in the book said that Amish people who leave the community really struggle in the outside world because they are not being true to who they are. Jed’s father says that people in grief often pull away from the body of Christ, with disastrous consequences. While many Amish people in the book disapproved of Lily’s departure and were hoping that she might return or be found, there is one character, Tilly, who had left the community years before to marry one of the English, and she offers to Eva her own perspective. While Amish parents are often encouraged to shun their children who leave the community, Tilly’s parents chose not to do so. Tilly appeared in a previous book by Lewis, The River.
Beverly Lewis writes books about the Amish in part because she grew up near Amish farmland, and, in the Acknowledgements, she thanks Amish consultants who have offered helpful feedback to her as a writer.
Will I ever read a book by Beverly Lewis again? There is a part of me that thinks reading romance books is a waste of time. On the other hand, there was a calming feel that I had in reading Lewis. I enjoyed spending time in her Amish setting, the same way that I like spending time in Mayberry when I watch the Andy Griffith Show, or Walnut Grove when I watch Little House on the Prairie. I may very well read more of her books in the future.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from Bethany House Publishers, in exchange for an honest review.
This is the first book by Beverly Lewis that I have ever read. She writes a lot of Christian fiction about the Amish. In The Photograph, Lily Esch abruptly leaves her Amish family and her Amish community after the death of her parents, and that worries her sister Eva. Meanwhile, an Amish buggy-maker named Jed is traveling by train from Ohio and finds a photograph of an Amish woman with make-up looking into the camera. The photo is inside of a copy of Little Women. Jed is not only puzzled by the boldness of the woman in the photograph, since Amish people are not allowed to get their picture taken, but he is also drawn to the notes in the copy of Little Women—-their sensitivity, longing, and wisdom. Jed himself is trying to move on after the death of his fiancee, who loved books just like he did. While many women are attracted to Jed, they are not exactly what he is looking for in a spouse. Jed is reluctant to fall in love again, until he meets Eva, thinking that she is the woman in the photograph.
This book did not sweep me off my feet, for it was a romance novel, and the ending was rather predictable. Still, it was a delightful read. It even had an endearing sub-plot about an Amish man named Omar who wanted to register to vote because he was enamored with Ronald Reagan, but his Amish community discouraged voting because God’s people are not supposed to be a part of this world.
The book also painted an interesting picture of Amish religion. One Amish person in the book said that Amish people who leave the community really struggle in the outside world because they are not being true to who they are. Jed’s father says that people in grief often pull away from the body of Christ, with disastrous consequences. While many Amish people in the book disapproved of Lily’s departure and were hoping that she might return or be found, there is one character, Tilly, who had left the community years before to marry one of the English, and she offers to Eva her own perspective. While Amish parents are often encouraged to shun their children who leave the community, Tilly’s parents chose not to do so. Tilly appeared in a previous book by Lewis, The River.
Beverly Lewis writes books about the Amish in part because she grew up near Amish farmland, and, in the Acknowledgements, she thanks Amish consultants who have offered helpful feedback to her as a writer.
Will I ever read a book by Beverly Lewis again? There is a part of me that thinks reading romance books is a waste of time. On the other hand, there was a calming feel that I had in reading Lewis. I enjoyed spending time in her Amish setting, the same way that I like spending time in Mayberry when I watch the Andy Griffith Show, or Walnut Grove when I watch Little House on the Prairie. I may very well read more of her books in the future.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from Bethany House Publishers, in exchange for an honest review.
Book Write-Up: Exploring Christology and Atonement, by Andrew Purves
Andrew Purves. Exploring Christology and Atonement: Conversations with John McLeod Campbell, H.R. MacKintosh and T.F. Torrance. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015. See here to purchase the book.
Andrew Purves teaches Historical Theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I wanted to read this book because my pastor at the Presbyterian Church that I attended in upstate New York and his wife heard Purves speak, and they were really impressed. After reading this book, I was impressed, too.
In Exploring Christology and Atonement, Purves explores the views of the atonement that were held by three Scottish theologians: John McLeod Campbell, H.R. MacKintosh, and T.F. Torrance. All three of these theologians were critical of the penal substitution model of the atonement, the idea that Jesus Christ through his death on the cross paid the death penalty that sinners deserve for their sins, dying in their place, appeasing God’s wrath, and bringing them forgiveness (or at least the option of forgiveness).
As I read Purves’ chapters about these thinkers, they did not seem to me to dismiss penal substitution thoroughly, for they did believe that Jesus Christ endured God’s judgment or absorbed God’s wrath on the cross. They were, however, opposed to limiting the atonement to that, as if the atonement were primarily a legal transaction. They were also critical of some of the baggage that has been associated with penal substitution, such as the idea that Jesus needed to die on the cross for God to love us or to reconcile himself to us. According to more than one of these thinkers, God does not need to be reconciled to us, for God loves us already; rather, we need to be reconciled to God.
Concepts that are explored in Purves’ book include the following: the relationship between the Father and the Son; union with Christ (which includes Christ’s attitudes towards sin on the cross); Christ’s repentance on behalf of sinners; how Christ’s incarnation binds God to God’s creation; the cross being an example of Christ’s faithfulness and righteousness, which believers can assume; how refusing to forgive others is rejecting God’s forgiveness and placing oneself outside of it; how Christ’s life on earth, not only his death, played a role in forgiveness and atonement; and how Israel plays a vicarious role in saving the nations in that, through her unbelief, God can save the Gentiles (Romans 9-11).
Some parts of this book were a worshipful experience in that they allowed me to appreciate the atonement as I have long understood it, as a Protestant (i.e., penal substitution, yet with an acknowledgment of other aspects). Other parts of the book opened my mind to new dimensions. While all of the book was good, it really came alive to me when Purves was discussing John McLeod Campbell’s criticism of many Christians for treating the Gospel as law, whereas Campbell supported greater assurance of God’s love and salvation for the believer.
My favorite passage in the book was on page 248, as Purves quotes H.R. MacKintosh: “They discover that to be Christians is not to repeat a creed, or to narrow life into a groove; but to have a strong, patient divine Leader, whom they can trust perfectly and love supremely, who is always drawing out in them their true nature and making them resolve to be true to it through the future…who imparts the forgiveness of sins and gives power to live in fellowship with God. Apart from this, his call would only mean a new despair. But his strength is made perfect in weakness.”
This is a deep, scholarly, and edifying book.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through Intervarsity Press, in exchange for an honest review.
Andrew Purves teaches Historical Theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I wanted to read this book because my pastor at the Presbyterian Church that I attended in upstate New York and his wife heard Purves speak, and they were really impressed. After reading this book, I was impressed, too.
In Exploring Christology and Atonement, Purves explores the views of the atonement that were held by three Scottish theologians: John McLeod Campbell, H.R. MacKintosh, and T.F. Torrance. All three of these theologians were critical of the penal substitution model of the atonement, the idea that Jesus Christ through his death on the cross paid the death penalty that sinners deserve for their sins, dying in their place, appeasing God’s wrath, and bringing them forgiveness (or at least the option of forgiveness).
As I read Purves’ chapters about these thinkers, they did not seem to me to dismiss penal substitution thoroughly, for they did believe that Jesus Christ endured God’s judgment or absorbed God’s wrath on the cross. They were, however, opposed to limiting the atonement to that, as if the atonement were primarily a legal transaction. They were also critical of some of the baggage that has been associated with penal substitution, such as the idea that Jesus needed to die on the cross for God to love us or to reconcile himself to us. According to more than one of these thinkers, God does not need to be reconciled to us, for God loves us already; rather, we need to be reconciled to God.
Concepts that are explored in Purves’ book include the following: the relationship between the Father and the Son; union with Christ (which includes Christ’s attitudes towards sin on the cross); Christ’s repentance on behalf of sinners; how Christ’s incarnation binds God to God’s creation; the cross being an example of Christ’s faithfulness and righteousness, which believers can assume; how refusing to forgive others is rejecting God’s forgiveness and placing oneself outside of it; how Christ’s life on earth, not only his death, played a role in forgiveness and atonement; and how Israel plays a vicarious role in saving the nations in that, through her unbelief, God can save the Gentiles (Romans 9-11).
Some parts of this book were a worshipful experience in that they allowed me to appreciate the atonement as I have long understood it, as a Protestant (i.e., penal substitution, yet with an acknowledgment of other aspects). Other parts of the book opened my mind to new dimensions. While all of the book was good, it really came alive to me when Purves was discussing John McLeod Campbell’s criticism of many Christians for treating the Gospel as law, whereas Campbell supported greater assurance of God’s love and salvation for the believer.
My favorite passage in the book was on page 248, as Purves quotes H.R. MacKintosh: “They discover that to be Christians is not to repeat a creed, or to narrow life into a groove; but to have a strong, patient divine Leader, whom they can trust perfectly and love supremely, who is always drawing out in them their true nature and making them resolve to be true to it through the future…who imparts the forgiveness of sins and gives power to live in fellowship with God. Apart from this, his call would only mean a new despair. But his strength is made perfect in weakness.”
This is a deep, scholarly, and edifying book.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through Intervarsity Press, in exchange for an honest review.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Book Write-Up: The Love of God, by John C. Peckham
John C. Peckham. The Love of God: A Canonical Model. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015. See here to purchase the book.
John C. Peckham teaches theology and Christian philosophy at Andrews University, which is a Seventh-Day Adventist university. His book, The Love of God: A Canonical Model, is a scholarly treatment of God’s love. Peckham interacts with theological ideas about God and God’s love.
Peckham addresses two models. The first model is the transcendent-voluntarist model of God’s love. It maintains that God is transcendent and unaffected by emotions, that God dispassionately and unconditionally loves the world, and that God voluntarily makes a choice to love the world rather than being compelled to do so by nature. The second model is the imminent-experientialist model of God’s love. It holds that the universe, in some sense, is a part of God, and that God thus feels what beings in the universe feel, in a sympathetic and empathetic manner.
Peckham is critical of both models, and he supports a third model, which he calls the foreconditional-reciprocal model of God’s love. Peckham bases this model on the biblical presentation of God’s love. In this model, God voluntarily chooses to love the world and to be emotionally invested in it and affected by it. God does not have to love the world out of any neediness on God’s part, for God already gives and receives love within the context of the Trinity. But God chose to create the world and to love it, and God is affected emotionally by what humans do. God’s emotional response is not arbitrary, however. God is pleased and satisfied when humans reciprocate, through faith and obedience, the love that God has shown to them, and God is upset by human wickedness. Moreover, Peckham regards God’s love as foreconditional more than unconditional. God wants every human being to be saved and in a relationship with God, but God has a special love for those who reciprocate God’s love through faith and obedience.
Overall, Peckham supports his model with Scripture. Against the view that God is dispassionate and devoid of emotions, Peckham appeals to the mountain of biblical statements about God having emotions and feeling certain ways in response to human behavior. Against the view that God’s love is unconditional, Peckham refers to biblical passages about God’s special love for the faithful and the righteous, and God’s special relationship them. Peckham is convincing on these particular issues.
Peckham’s book is also useful with regards to the Greek and Hebrew words for love. Many theologians and Christian writers have waxed eloquent about agape being a dispassionate, disinterested, divine sort of love, but Peckham effectively argues that this is not necessarily the case in Scripture.
This book is a fresh, scholarly, and biblical discussion of God’s love. My main criticism, however, is that it should have gone into more detail about what God’s love is, or what God’s love entails. Is it God’s affection? Is it God’s desire to do good to people? If so, what is the nature of that good? Are we talking about physical and material blessings, spiritual blessings, or both? When people say that God loves them, what does that mean exactly? In what sense is God loving them? From a Christian perspective, the answer to these questions may seem rather obvious, in areas: God shows love for people by offering them salvation, which includes forgiveness of sin, a relationship with God, and eternal life. This is God benefiting people and being concerned about their well-being. But does God’s love entail giving people material blessings, as seems to be the case in parts of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament (i.e., Psalm 104; Matthew 5:45)? If so, how can one account for people who do not have many material blessings? Does God not love them? Peckham would have done well to have wrestled with these issues, for they relate to the substance and concrete expression of God’s love.
Peckham seems to be an Arminian, one who maintains that God gives prevenient grace so that all people can respond to God’s love; this is in contrast with Calvinism, which holds that God chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world and then unilaterally transformed the chosen ones so that they would have faith and live a holy life. My issue with Arminianism is that it does not seem to me that everyone on earth has an equal opportunity to respond to God. Some have heard the Gospel, whereas some have not; some are receptive to God, whereas some are hard-hearted or indifferent, or find that they cannot believe even if they wanted to do so. How does this fit into God’s love? Peckham should have wrestled with this.
The book did not exactly make me feel better from a spiritual standpoint. I am drawn to the Christian slogan that there is nothing we can do that will make God love us more, and that there is nothing we can do that will make God love us less. The problem is that this does not mesh that neatly with certain things that are in the Bible. Moreover, when we say that God has a special love for the faithful or obedient, that is not particularly reassuring, for, being imperfect, many of us fall short in terms of faith and obedience to God’s rules. I do not dismiss what Peckham says, but I would add to it a belief that God is patient with us and recognizes that we are works in progress.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from Intervarsity Press, in exchange for an honest review.
John C. Peckham teaches theology and Christian philosophy at Andrews University, which is a Seventh-Day Adventist university. His book, The Love of God: A Canonical Model, is a scholarly treatment of God’s love. Peckham interacts with theological ideas about God and God’s love.
Peckham addresses two models. The first model is the transcendent-voluntarist model of God’s love. It maintains that God is transcendent and unaffected by emotions, that God dispassionately and unconditionally loves the world, and that God voluntarily makes a choice to love the world rather than being compelled to do so by nature. The second model is the imminent-experientialist model of God’s love. It holds that the universe, in some sense, is a part of God, and that God thus feels what beings in the universe feel, in a sympathetic and empathetic manner.
Peckham is critical of both models, and he supports a third model, which he calls the foreconditional-reciprocal model of God’s love. Peckham bases this model on the biblical presentation of God’s love. In this model, God voluntarily chooses to love the world and to be emotionally invested in it and affected by it. God does not have to love the world out of any neediness on God’s part, for God already gives and receives love within the context of the Trinity. But God chose to create the world and to love it, and God is affected emotionally by what humans do. God’s emotional response is not arbitrary, however. God is pleased and satisfied when humans reciprocate, through faith and obedience, the love that God has shown to them, and God is upset by human wickedness. Moreover, Peckham regards God’s love as foreconditional more than unconditional. God wants every human being to be saved and in a relationship with God, but God has a special love for those who reciprocate God’s love through faith and obedience.
Overall, Peckham supports his model with Scripture. Against the view that God is dispassionate and devoid of emotions, Peckham appeals to the mountain of biblical statements about God having emotions and feeling certain ways in response to human behavior. Against the view that God’s love is unconditional, Peckham refers to biblical passages about God’s special love for the faithful and the righteous, and God’s special relationship them. Peckham is convincing on these particular issues.
Peckham’s book is also useful with regards to the Greek and Hebrew words for love. Many theologians and Christian writers have waxed eloquent about agape being a dispassionate, disinterested, divine sort of love, but Peckham effectively argues that this is not necessarily the case in Scripture.
This book is a fresh, scholarly, and biblical discussion of God’s love. My main criticism, however, is that it should have gone into more detail about what God’s love is, or what God’s love entails. Is it God’s affection? Is it God’s desire to do good to people? If so, what is the nature of that good? Are we talking about physical and material blessings, spiritual blessings, or both? When people say that God loves them, what does that mean exactly? In what sense is God loving them? From a Christian perspective, the answer to these questions may seem rather obvious, in areas: God shows love for people by offering them salvation, which includes forgiveness of sin, a relationship with God, and eternal life. This is God benefiting people and being concerned about their well-being. But does God’s love entail giving people material blessings, as seems to be the case in parts of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament (i.e., Psalm 104; Matthew 5:45)? If so, how can one account for people who do not have many material blessings? Does God not love them? Peckham would have done well to have wrestled with these issues, for they relate to the substance and concrete expression of God’s love.
Peckham seems to be an Arminian, one who maintains that God gives prevenient grace so that all people can respond to God’s love; this is in contrast with Calvinism, which holds that God chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world and then unilaterally transformed the chosen ones so that they would have faith and live a holy life. My issue with Arminianism is that it does not seem to me that everyone on earth has an equal opportunity to respond to God. Some have heard the Gospel, whereas some have not; some are receptive to God, whereas some are hard-hearted or indifferent, or find that they cannot believe even if they wanted to do so. How does this fit into God’s love? Peckham should have wrestled with this.
The book did not exactly make me feel better from a spiritual standpoint. I am drawn to the Christian slogan that there is nothing we can do that will make God love us more, and that there is nothing we can do that will make God love us less. The problem is that this does not mesh that neatly with certain things that are in the Bible. Moreover, when we say that God has a special love for the faithful or obedient, that is not particularly reassuring, for, being imperfect, many of us fall short in terms of faith and obedience to God’s rules. I do not dismiss what Peckham says, but I would add to it a belief that God is patient with us and recognizes that we are works in progress.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from Intervarsity Press, in exchange for an honest review.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Book Write-Up: God's Weigh to Your Ideal Body Weight
Michael Scott Lowery. God’s Weigh to Your Ideal Body Weight: Your Body Should Glorify God. Bloomington: Westbow Press (a division of Thomas Nelson), 2013. See here to buy the book.
In God’s Weigh to Your Ideal Body Weight, Michael Scott Lowery talks about how Christians can arrive at their ideal body weight. While Lowery does not believe that this is essential to salvation, he does view it as an important part of Christian discipleship. I Corinthians 6:19-20 says that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, that Christians are not their own but were bought with a price, and that Christians should therefore glorify God with their bodies. According to Lowery, Christians in good health can be happier, more energetic disciples than Christians in poor health. Lowery also thinks that Christians in good health can attract non-believers to Christianity.
What, according to Lowery, is God’s “weigh” to arriving at one’s ideal body weight? Lowery does not recommend getting up at 5 a.m. to go to the gym, for he regards the time when he was obsessed with exercise and physical fitness to be a waste of time, which proved to be deleterious to his health. Lowery also is not for people starving themselves, for Lowery maintains that people should eat when they are hungry.
What Lowery does support, however, are spiritual, personal, and dietary changes. Pray and read the Bible every day, for that can give you peace of mind (so that you don’t eat to cope) and spiritual direction, as well as ensure that you are dieting for the right reasons (i.e., to glorify God, not out of vanity or trying to look good for purposes of seduction). Instead of working at a job that you hate, find God’s calling on your life. Avoid processed sugars, processed flours, and hydrogenated oils. Take cod-liver oil (a source of Omega 3) each day and eat fruits and vegetables. Obey the dietary instructions of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, eating the meats that God allows (i.e., beef, cod), while avoiding the meats that God prohibits (i.e., pork). Eat Ezekiel 4:9 bread. Do not drink water with dinner, but be hydrated throughout the day. Lowery believes that his method not only can make people healthier but also can reduce their craving for food that drives them to overeat. Lowery usually offers a scientific explanation for his method, as he explains why his approach works better for the human body.
Lowery is practically absolutist about his approach. He not only regards eating processed sugar as unhealthy; he believes that processed sugars are poison and that eating them is a sin. Lowery also seems to regard being overweight as a sin. Lowery does not believe that he has been perfect, however, for he is open about his flaws, where he has struggled, and what he has learned.
I am rather ambivalent about some of Lowery’s biblical interpretations. Lowery clearly regards Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 as laws relating to physical health, and that has been disputed by a number of biblical scholars, who believe that the laws relate to purity or setting Israel apart from other nations; ancient Jewish interpreters tended to look for spiritual or moral reasons that God allowed Israelites to eat some animals but not others (i.e., unclean animals are carnivorous, and God does not want us to be trying to oppress our fellow human beings). Deuteronomy 14:3 does call the unclean animals abominable, as Lowery repeatedly notes, so that tells me that Deuteronomy 14 is not arbitrary in saying which animals are unclean. Yet, Deuteronomy 14:21 allows Israelites to give animals that die of themselves to resident aliens or foreigners, even though the Israelites are not allowed to eat them themselves. If this law were about physical health, why would God allow the Israelites to give an animal dying of itself to a foreigner? Is God less concerned about the physical health of the foreigner? I doubt that even Lowery would say that, for Lowery treats the dietary laws as universal!
Lowery also seems to resort to conspiratorial thinking in talking about Mark 7:19. The KJV for Mark 7:19 talks about the bodily purgation of meats, whereas the NIV says that Jesus was declaring all foods to be clean. For Lowery, the NIV is adding to Scripture. Actually, the NIV is following manuscripts that treat the verb as nominative.
On Ezekiel 4:9 bread, yes, it is probably healthy and can address people’s desire for carbohydrates. But God was not giving Ezekiel that recipe to give him tips on how to have a healthy diet: God’s point was that Israel would have to eat bread like that in the time of her affliction.
Overall, this is a good book to read. I doubt that I will be as absolutist as Lowery in my dietary habits, but I should try to make better dietary choices more often than I do.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.
In God’s Weigh to Your Ideal Body Weight, Michael Scott Lowery talks about how Christians can arrive at their ideal body weight. While Lowery does not believe that this is essential to salvation, he does view it as an important part of Christian discipleship. I Corinthians 6:19-20 says that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, that Christians are not their own but were bought with a price, and that Christians should therefore glorify God with their bodies. According to Lowery, Christians in good health can be happier, more energetic disciples than Christians in poor health. Lowery also thinks that Christians in good health can attract non-believers to Christianity.
What, according to Lowery, is God’s “weigh” to arriving at one’s ideal body weight? Lowery does not recommend getting up at 5 a.m. to go to the gym, for he regards the time when he was obsessed with exercise and physical fitness to be a waste of time, which proved to be deleterious to his health. Lowery also is not for people starving themselves, for Lowery maintains that people should eat when they are hungry.
What Lowery does support, however, are spiritual, personal, and dietary changes. Pray and read the Bible every day, for that can give you peace of mind (so that you don’t eat to cope) and spiritual direction, as well as ensure that you are dieting for the right reasons (i.e., to glorify God, not out of vanity or trying to look good for purposes of seduction). Instead of working at a job that you hate, find God’s calling on your life. Avoid processed sugars, processed flours, and hydrogenated oils. Take cod-liver oil (a source of Omega 3) each day and eat fruits and vegetables. Obey the dietary instructions of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, eating the meats that God allows (i.e., beef, cod), while avoiding the meats that God prohibits (i.e., pork). Eat Ezekiel 4:9 bread. Do not drink water with dinner, but be hydrated throughout the day. Lowery believes that his method not only can make people healthier but also can reduce their craving for food that drives them to overeat. Lowery usually offers a scientific explanation for his method, as he explains why his approach works better for the human body.
Lowery is practically absolutist about his approach. He not only regards eating processed sugar as unhealthy; he believes that processed sugars are poison and that eating them is a sin. Lowery also seems to regard being overweight as a sin. Lowery does not believe that he has been perfect, however, for he is open about his flaws, where he has struggled, and what he has learned.
I am rather ambivalent about some of Lowery’s biblical interpretations. Lowery clearly regards Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 as laws relating to physical health, and that has been disputed by a number of biblical scholars, who believe that the laws relate to purity or setting Israel apart from other nations; ancient Jewish interpreters tended to look for spiritual or moral reasons that God allowed Israelites to eat some animals but not others (i.e., unclean animals are carnivorous, and God does not want us to be trying to oppress our fellow human beings). Deuteronomy 14:3 does call the unclean animals abominable, as Lowery repeatedly notes, so that tells me that Deuteronomy 14 is not arbitrary in saying which animals are unclean. Yet, Deuteronomy 14:21 allows Israelites to give animals that die of themselves to resident aliens or foreigners, even though the Israelites are not allowed to eat them themselves. If this law were about physical health, why would God allow the Israelites to give an animal dying of itself to a foreigner? Is God less concerned about the physical health of the foreigner? I doubt that even Lowery would say that, for Lowery treats the dietary laws as universal!
Lowery also seems to resort to conspiratorial thinking in talking about Mark 7:19. The KJV for Mark 7:19 talks about the bodily purgation of meats, whereas the NIV says that Jesus was declaring all foods to be clean. For Lowery, the NIV is adding to Scripture. Actually, the NIV is following manuscripts that treat the verb as nominative.
On Ezekiel 4:9 bread, yes, it is probably healthy and can address people’s desire for carbohydrates. But God was not giving Ezekiel that recipe to give him tips on how to have a healthy diet: God’s point was that Israel would have to eat bread like that in the time of her affliction.
Overall, this is a good book to read. I doubt that I will be as absolutist as Lowery in my dietary habits, but I should try to make better dietary choices more often than I do.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Book Write-Up: The Christian Life, by Stephen A. Hein
Steven A. Hein. The Christian Life: Cross or Glory? Irvine, California: New Reformation Publications, 2015. See here to purchase the book.
In The Christian Life: Cross or Glory?, Stephen A. Hein presents his Lutheran view of the Christian life, as he draws from the writings of Martin Luther. This view emphasizes justification by grace through faith alone----accepting God’s free gift of being regarded as righteous through Christ, even though one is still a sinner. It believes that God’s law exists primarily to remind sinners of their dire need for Christ by pointing out their sins and need for justification. For Hein, the condemning law and the saving Gospel are both relevant even to Christians, in that remembering them prevents spiritual indifference, on the one hand, and self-righteousness, on the other hand. Hein's Lutheranism maintains that Christians perform good works out of gratitude to God for salvation, and also because their new nature is naturally inclined to perform good works. It also presents the Christian life as one of trial and struggle against the flesh, the world, and the devil. Hein upholds his Lutheran perspective, while critiquing other perspectives about the Christian life, particularly the prosperity Gospel, as well as Augustinian, Wesleyan, and Calvinist views.
The positives of this book were many. Hein speaks to the frustration that many Christians have as they try, yet often fail, to live a holy life. A lot of what he says about free grace and the limitations of the law is comforting. Hein tells or relays beautiful stories that effectively illustrate his message about what the Christian life should be like: the story of the husband who admits to his wife that he does not really love her, yet comes to love her when she says that she loves him anyway; and Kierkegaard’s story about the king who falls in love with a peasant woman yet wants her to love him authentically, not out of fear of him or his power. Yet, Hein is scholarly, as he draws from Luther’s writings and interacts with debates about Luther’s views on the third use of the law (i.e., the law as a guide to the Christian life). Hein also includes in his book some fresh and interesting insights. Hein contrasts Old Testament views of suffering with New Testament views, and he addresses the view that Christ is not present in the Eucharist because Christ is in heaven by presenting heaven and hell as parallel dimensions, not exactly as physical places. (I wonder if that could account for ghosts from a Christian perspective: we may see ghosts in our reality, yet those ghosts may also be in heaven or hell.)
In terms of the book’s negatives, there were times when I found the book to be rather contradictory. I was unclear about whether Hein believes that the law of God actually condemns the non-believer, for Hein said in a few places that people in hell are forgiven and justified. Hein presents good works as something that should be automatic to Christians, who have a new nature, yet he also acknowledges the struggles of the Christian life, which (in my mind) calls into question how automatic the good works are.
Hein also should have laid out more clearly the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Both Lutheranism and Calvinism overlap, in areas. Hein, for example, likens salvation to God raising a dead body, and Calvinists have used this sort of simile in arguing that humans are so sinful that they can only respond to God if God enables them to do so, if God resurrects their spiritually dead selves and opens their eyes. Luther in the Bondage of the Will says things that remind me of Calvinism. At the same time, there are differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism, as I can tell from Hein's book. Hein criticizes Calvinism for promoting spiritual insecurity, as people look at the quality of their spiritual lives to determine if they are among God's elect, if they are bearing the spiritual fruit that God's elect produce; Hein believes that his Lutheran view offers more assurance of salvation. Hein maintains that Christ died for everyone and that everyone, in some sense, has been forgiven (Hein cites II Corinthians 5:19), whereas many Calvinists hold that Christ died only for the elect, and that only the elect have the forgiveness that is unto salvation. Hein thinks that Christians can get to the point where they become hardened to God through their sinful lives, undermine their faith, and commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whereas many Calvinists believe that the saints persevere in their faith unto the end. I did learn more about differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism in Hein's book, but I am still unclear about how Hein's Lutheran view holds together: How can it be so like Calvinism, in key areas, and yet depart from Calvinism, in other areas? Calvinism, overall, strikes me as having an inner consistency, such that its system holds together: God transforms the sinful person, such that the person stays faithful unto the end. How can God transform the sinful person, without that person staying faithful to the end?
Overall, I found this book to be edifying and educational.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through Cross Focused Reviews, in exchange for an honest review.
In The Christian Life: Cross or Glory?, Stephen A. Hein presents his Lutheran view of the Christian life, as he draws from the writings of Martin Luther. This view emphasizes justification by grace through faith alone----accepting God’s free gift of being regarded as righteous through Christ, even though one is still a sinner. It believes that God’s law exists primarily to remind sinners of their dire need for Christ by pointing out their sins and need for justification. For Hein, the condemning law and the saving Gospel are both relevant even to Christians, in that remembering them prevents spiritual indifference, on the one hand, and self-righteousness, on the other hand. Hein's Lutheranism maintains that Christians perform good works out of gratitude to God for salvation, and also because their new nature is naturally inclined to perform good works. It also presents the Christian life as one of trial and struggle against the flesh, the world, and the devil. Hein upholds his Lutheran perspective, while critiquing other perspectives about the Christian life, particularly the prosperity Gospel, as well as Augustinian, Wesleyan, and Calvinist views.
The positives of this book were many. Hein speaks to the frustration that many Christians have as they try, yet often fail, to live a holy life. A lot of what he says about free grace and the limitations of the law is comforting. Hein tells or relays beautiful stories that effectively illustrate his message about what the Christian life should be like: the story of the husband who admits to his wife that he does not really love her, yet comes to love her when she says that she loves him anyway; and Kierkegaard’s story about the king who falls in love with a peasant woman yet wants her to love him authentically, not out of fear of him or his power. Yet, Hein is scholarly, as he draws from Luther’s writings and interacts with debates about Luther’s views on the third use of the law (i.e., the law as a guide to the Christian life). Hein also includes in his book some fresh and interesting insights. Hein contrasts Old Testament views of suffering with New Testament views, and he addresses the view that Christ is not present in the Eucharist because Christ is in heaven by presenting heaven and hell as parallel dimensions, not exactly as physical places. (I wonder if that could account for ghosts from a Christian perspective: we may see ghosts in our reality, yet those ghosts may also be in heaven or hell.)
In terms of the book’s negatives, there were times when I found the book to be rather contradictory. I was unclear about whether Hein believes that the law of God actually condemns the non-believer, for Hein said in a few places that people in hell are forgiven and justified. Hein presents good works as something that should be automatic to Christians, who have a new nature, yet he also acknowledges the struggles of the Christian life, which (in my mind) calls into question how automatic the good works are.
Hein also should have laid out more clearly the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Both Lutheranism and Calvinism overlap, in areas. Hein, for example, likens salvation to God raising a dead body, and Calvinists have used this sort of simile in arguing that humans are so sinful that they can only respond to God if God enables them to do so, if God resurrects their spiritually dead selves and opens their eyes. Luther in the Bondage of the Will says things that remind me of Calvinism. At the same time, there are differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism, as I can tell from Hein's book. Hein criticizes Calvinism for promoting spiritual insecurity, as people look at the quality of their spiritual lives to determine if they are among God's elect, if they are bearing the spiritual fruit that God's elect produce; Hein believes that his Lutheran view offers more assurance of salvation. Hein maintains that Christ died for everyone and that everyone, in some sense, has been forgiven (Hein cites II Corinthians 5:19), whereas many Calvinists hold that Christ died only for the elect, and that only the elect have the forgiveness that is unto salvation. Hein thinks that Christians can get to the point where they become hardened to God through their sinful lives, undermine their faith, and commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whereas many Calvinists believe that the saints persevere in their faith unto the end. I did learn more about differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism in Hein's book, but I am still unclear about how Hein's Lutheran view holds together: How can it be so like Calvinism, in key areas, and yet depart from Calvinism, in other areas? Calvinism, overall, strikes me as having an inner consistency, such that its system holds together: God transforms the sinful person, such that the person stays faithful unto the end. How can God transform the sinful person, without that person staying faithful to the end?
Overall, I found this book to be edifying and educational.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through Cross Focused Reviews, in exchange for an honest review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)