Posts
At church last Sunday, it was raining outside, plus there were
forecasts of an ice-storm. I stayed home and watched John MacArthur’s
service, then I watched the service of the church that I usually
attend. I hope I don’t get too comfortable with this way of doing
“church”! As an introvert, I love it, but I do think it is good for me
to push myself into situations that involve being with people.
MacArthur was continuing his series on the church, and he was commenting on Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:24: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (KJV).
What does it mean to deny oneself? Does it mean that we are never
allowed to do what we want to do, to please ourselves? Can we never
have our own way?
MacArthur offered explanations. For him, one way that we deny
ourselves is by being humble about our need for God’s forgiveness.
According to MacArthur, we should come to church, wanting nothing from
God but God’s forgiveness. As we grow in the faith, MacArthur said, we
become more and more aware of how unworthy we are of what God has given
us.
How is this self-denial? It may be self-denial in the sense that it
entails that we deny our natural tendency to exalt ourselves, by
humbling ourselves before God.
MacArthur offered other ideas, as well. He referred to a Puritan
poem about a person losing everything, yet still having Jesus and the
riches of God’s grace. MacArthur also mentioned attitudes that
correspond with self-denial. Such attitudes include being content with
anonymity, accepting rebuke from people we consider our social inferiors
(or at least taking that rebuke seriously), not fighting back when we
are criticized, and being happy for someone when something good happens
in that person’s life, even if we are still struggling. Again,
self-denial contends against our desire for self-exaltation.
The pastor at the church that I normally attend touched on
self-denial. He has done so in past sermons, too. For him, self-denial
is resisting our old, sinful self, which wants to go the opposite
direction from God’s way. We have to say “no” to that.
How do I process all of this? Sure, I would love to be content with
anonymity! Some days, like today, I actually am. But, like a lot of
people, Christians included, I would like to be noticed. And, in my
opinion, part of Christian love is recognizing other people’s desire to
be noticed and actually noticing them! There are plenty of New
Testament passages about encouraging people, which entails noticing
them.
What is self-denial? I could say that it related to the persecution
that Christians endured back then, and even endure today in certain
countries, but that seems like too convenient of an explanation, for me
and other Christians in the United States. In my opinion, and I’m sure
there are people who will disagree with me on this, being a Christian in
the United States does not entail a lot of counting the cost.
Christians are not put to death in the United States for being
Christians. I could say that self-denial means being a Christian
despite persecution, and, since I am not persecuted, that command does
not apply to me. But that sounds like the easy way out.
Maybe MacArthur goes to an extreme in his characterization of
self-denial, but then, on the other hand, maybe there is somewhere in
there something helpful and constructive: being so secure in our
identity in God that we can actually take second place.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Book Write-Up: Liked, by Kari Kampakis
Kari Kampakis. Liked: Whose Approval Are You Living For? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2016. See here to buy the book.
In Liked: Whose Approval Are You Living For?, Kari Kampakis offers teenage girls advice in this social media age. Among the topics that she address are the difference between online and person-to-person friendships, how to handle one’s desire for fame on social media, how to conduct oneself on social media, the importance of being kind to people and reaching out to them in person, appreciating one’s own uniqueness, and how to cope with rejection. The advice that she offers is helpful, not only for teenage girls, but for others looking for a helpful repertoire in life.
Most of the chapters open with a story or case-study, and the stories were engaging and relatable. They presented people who were dealing with insecurity, rejection, or social challenges in reaching out to people; a person who confused love of God with a desire for personal fame; and a person who was in a clique that squashed individuality and encouraged members to ostracize someone, yet brought its members acclaim among their peers.
In a number of chapters, Kampakis had lists of recommended strategies, on such topics as social media habits, handling relationships, dealing with rejection, cultivating one’s faith, and serving others. At the end of many of the chapters are questions. Many of the questions are about how the respondent feels and why, but some of them are case-studies that offer multiple-choice options on how to respond to a situation. On these latter questions, Kampakis identifies what she believes are the appropriate responses.
A theme that recurs throughout the book is God’s unconditional love. Kampakis says that God loves us, even though God knows what we are really like, and she encourages people to be charitable towards others, with their flaws. That is an encouraging picture of God. It is helpful, in a world of so much judgment and rejection, to believe that God is accepting. Does it square with everything that the Bible says about God? I struggle with that, but I agree that Kampakis presents a compelling picture of God and a relationship with God.
Kampakis encourages people to reach out to others, but she is also sensitive, on some level, to the reality that some people are shy or introverted, or fear rejection. Her advice takes that into account, and she encourages people to be kind to others, even if they remain unnoticed. She sometimes offers specific tips on social interaction: compliment a person, ask a person for advice if that person excels at something, be willing to help others, etc. I think that the book would have been better had it offered more social tips, such as advice on where and how to make friends, or how to approach people without turning them off. Often, Kampakis seemed to assume that Christians’ bubbly, joyful personality would attract people, but that assumption strikes me as too optimistic, or at least as too much of a generalization. Kampakis makes a valid point when she describes why Christians should be hopeful—-because they see the sufferings of this life as temporary—-but I would respond that there are people who may try to believe in Christian doctrine yet struggle to have hope, let alone convey a hopeful attitude towards others.
I will add that what Kampakis says about her children in the Acknowledgments is beautiful.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through BookLook Bloggers. My review is honest!
In Liked: Whose Approval Are You Living For?, Kari Kampakis offers teenage girls advice in this social media age. Among the topics that she address are the difference between online and person-to-person friendships, how to handle one’s desire for fame on social media, how to conduct oneself on social media, the importance of being kind to people and reaching out to them in person, appreciating one’s own uniqueness, and how to cope with rejection. The advice that she offers is helpful, not only for teenage girls, but for others looking for a helpful repertoire in life.
Most of the chapters open with a story or case-study, and the stories were engaging and relatable. They presented people who were dealing with insecurity, rejection, or social challenges in reaching out to people; a person who confused love of God with a desire for personal fame; and a person who was in a clique that squashed individuality and encouraged members to ostracize someone, yet brought its members acclaim among their peers.
In a number of chapters, Kampakis had lists of recommended strategies, on such topics as social media habits, handling relationships, dealing with rejection, cultivating one’s faith, and serving others. At the end of many of the chapters are questions. Many of the questions are about how the respondent feels and why, but some of them are case-studies that offer multiple-choice options on how to respond to a situation. On these latter questions, Kampakis identifies what she believes are the appropriate responses.
A theme that recurs throughout the book is God’s unconditional love. Kampakis says that God loves us, even though God knows what we are really like, and she encourages people to be charitable towards others, with their flaws. That is an encouraging picture of God. It is helpful, in a world of so much judgment and rejection, to believe that God is accepting. Does it square with everything that the Bible says about God? I struggle with that, but I agree that Kampakis presents a compelling picture of God and a relationship with God.
Kampakis encourages people to reach out to others, but she is also sensitive, on some level, to the reality that some people are shy or introverted, or fear rejection. Her advice takes that into account, and she encourages people to be kind to others, even if they remain unnoticed. She sometimes offers specific tips on social interaction: compliment a person, ask a person for advice if that person excels at something, be willing to help others, etc. I think that the book would have been better had it offered more social tips, such as advice on where and how to make friends, or how to approach people without turning them off. Often, Kampakis seemed to assume that Christians’ bubbly, joyful personality would attract people, but that assumption strikes me as too optimistic, or at least as too much of a generalization. Kampakis makes a valid point when she describes why Christians should be hopeful—-because they see the sufferings of this life as temporary—-but I would respond that there are people who may try to believe in Christian doctrine yet struggle to have hope, let alone convey a hopeful attitude towards others.
I will add that what Kampakis says about her children in the Acknowledgments is beautiful.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through BookLook Bloggers. My review is honest!
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Book Write-Up: The Coming Flood, by Jeremy Wells
Jeremy Wells. The Coming Flood: A Call for the Endurance and Faith of the Saints. LED Ministries, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
In The Coming Flood, Jeremy Wells argues against the pre-tribulational view of the rapture and offers thoughts on parts of the Book of Revelation. For Wells, Gentile Christians will not be raptured to heaven before the Great Tribulation but will be slaughtered by the Antichrist.
Here are some of my thoughts:
A. Many defenders of the pre-tribulational rapture view note that there is no explicit reference to the church in the Book of Revelation. They claim this is because the church was raptured to heaven prior to the end-time events that the Book of Revelation describes (God’s wrath on the earth, the Antichrist, etc). For pre-tribulationalists, the church is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation because it is not on earth during those end-time events. Wells has another explanation for the absence of the church in the Book of Revelation: all Gentile Christians will be killed by the Antichrist. This is a rather grisly explanation, but I also question whether it adequately replies to the pre-tribulational argument. Couldn’t a pre-tribulationalist ask why the Book of Revelation does not say that the Antichrist kills the church, specifically?
Speaking for myself personally, I think pre-tribulationalists make too big a deal about the lack of an explicit reference to the church in the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation presents followers of Jesus Christ on earth. Are they not the church, even if they are not explicitly called that? I have no major objection to Wells’ argument that, according to eschatological biblical writings, there will be saints on earth during the eschaton and that they will be persecuted, many even killed. But I question whether the Antichrist will successfully kill every single Gentile saint, as Wells argues, and I also do not think that “global genocide” should be offered as an explanation for the absence of an explicit reference to the church in the Book of Revelation.
B. Wells believes that the Gentile saints will be slaughtered, whereas God will preserve the Jewish saints until the time of the Second Coming. A question that occurred in my mind is why God has a different policy towards the Jewish saints than God has for the Gentile saints: Why does God preserve one group, but not the other? To his credit, Wells offers an answer to this question, and the answer is rather sensible. You will have to read the book to find out what it is! I will also add that, notwithstanding my reservations in (A.), I do think that Wells is wrestling with a real dilemma in Scripture. On the one hand, God wants to preserve the lives of the elect in the end-times (see Matthew 24:22). On the other hand, there are indications in biblical writings that righteous people in the end-times will be persecuted and even killed. How does Wells attempt to resolve this dilemma? He says that God will preserve the lives of the Jewish Christians, but not the Gentile Christians.
C. Wells has good arguments for his position regarding the rapture, but also undeveloped arguments. His best arguments appear in Appendix C, which is entitled “Rapture FAQs.” A good argument in that Appendix is that Jesus coming as a thief (see I Thessalonians 5:2) does not necessarily mean that the rapture is pretribulational, for Jesus says he will come as a thief in Revelation 16:15, and that chapter depicts events “just before the second coming” (Wells’ words). Wells also offers the interesting argument that the removal of the restrainer in II Thessalonians 2:6-7 refers, not to the rapture of the church before the rise of the Antichrist, but rather to Michael the archangel desisting from his restraint of the Antichrist (cp. Daniel 10:21; 12:1).
Wells’ argument about the Church of Philadelphia had potential but was undeveloped. Revelation 3:10 affirms that Jesus will keep the righteous Philadelphian church from the hour of temptation that will befall the world, and many pre-tribulationists see that verse as a text of support for the pre-tribulational rapture. Wells responds, however, that Jesus also implies in v 12 that the Philadelphian Christians are overcomers, and overcoming, in the Book of Revelation, often implies endurance of persecution (Revelation 12:11). For Wells, v 12 indicates that the Philadelphians, too, will suffer persecution at the hands of the Antichrist. That is a fairly decent argument, but how would Wells then interpret v 10, the verse that pre-tribulationists like to cite?
D. Revelation 7 talks about the 144,000 people from the tribes of Israel whom God protects from God’s wrath on the earth. The tribes of Dan and Ephraim are notably absent from that list, and Wells attempts to explain why. His explanation of Dan’s absence is rather conventional: Dan is left out because it is evil. Wells’ explanation for Ephraim’s absence was new, and interesting, to me. Many interpreters explain Ephraim’s absence the same way that they explain Dan’s: Ephraim was a center of idolatry in the Hebrew Bible, so Revelation 7 leaves it out. Wells, however, went a different route. He notes that Ephraim in Genesis 48:19 is called a multitude of nations, so he interprets Ephraim, not as a tribe, but as the Gentile Christians in the Book of Revelation, the great multitude of Christians from different nations in Revelation 7:9. For Wells, Ephraim is not listed among the 144,000 Israelites because Ephraim is not Israelite: it is a multitude of nations, or Gentiles.
This explanation raises questions, of course. So often in the Hebrew Bible, Ephraim is treated as an ethnically Israelite tribe, not as Gentiles. Wells does not account for this in his book. Wells critiques the post-millennialists and a-millennialists because they have a symbolic, non-literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation, but I wonder if his interpretation of Ephraim is itself symbolic, non-literal, or at least unfaithful to Ephraim’s literal, biblical significance.
At the same time, I think that Wells is wrestling with a real issue: How could Ephraim be a multitude of nations, if it were just one Israelite tribe? What did Jacob mean or envision when he called Ephraim a multitude of nations? I grew up in Armstrongism, and it embraced British-Israelism, as it claimed that the United States and Britain were descended from the lost ten tribes of Israel. My recollection is that Armstrongites believed that Ephraim was the British empire, and that was how Ephraim was a company of nations.
But there are alternative ways to explain Ephraim being a multitude of nations. Keil-Delitzsch interpret it in reference to Ephraim’s sizeable population in the times of the Hebrew Bible, and also its status as the head of the ten Northern tribes of Israel. Satisfying or not, that may be the best explanation out there.
E. Wells talks some about the psychological effects of the pre-trib rapture doctrine and his own doctrine. Wells can empathize with those who like the pre-trib doctrine because it offers them comfort: they are happy that they will not have to suffer the horrors of the Tribulation! On the one hand, Wells seems to be trying to reassure them that they will not lose that sense of comfort by embracing his position: they are still going to the same place (to be with God), even if that comes after their death at the hands of the Antichrist, rather than before the Tribulation! That is an interesting way to look at the situation: Why fear anything, including the Tribulation, if your destiny is to be with God? On the other hand, Wells appears to acknowledge that embracing his position does entail hardship that is absent from the pre-trib position. For Wells, if Gentile Christians will be slaughtered at the hands of the Antichrist, then they need to prepare themselves spiritually for that, becoming stronger in their faith.
F. Wells tends to approach the Book of Revelation with a newspaper in hand, or, at least, with his own observations of current events. That leads him to intriguing interpretations. I do not regard them as authoritative, but as intriguing.
G. The book could have been better organized and better written. Its grammar was all right. But it could be rather elliptical, at times. Perhaps the book would have been better had Wells presented at the outset his own personal story of how he changed his mind on the rapture.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Bookcrash. My review is honest!
In The Coming Flood, Jeremy Wells argues against the pre-tribulational view of the rapture and offers thoughts on parts of the Book of Revelation. For Wells, Gentile Christians will not be raptured to heaven before the Great Tribulation but will be slaughtered by the Antichrist.
Here are some of my thoughts:
A. Many defenders of the pre-tribulational rapture view note that there is no explicit reference to the church in the Book of Revelation. They claim this is because the church was raptured to heaven prior to the end-time events that the Book of Revelation describes (God’s wrath on the earth, the Antichrist, etc). For pre-tribulationalists, the church is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation because it is not on earth during those end-time events. Wells has another explanation for the absence of the church in the Book of Revelation: all Gentile Christians will be killed by the Antichrist. This is a rather grisly explanation, but I also question whether it adequately replies to the pre-tribulational argument. Couldn’t a pre-tribulationalist ask why the Book of Revelation does not say that the Antichrist kills the church, specifically?
Speaking for myself personally, I think pre-tribulationalists make too big a deal about the lack of an explicit reference to the church in the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation presents followers of Jesus Christ on earth. Are they not the church, even if they are not explicitly called that? I have no major objection to Wells’ argument that, according to eschatological biblical writings, there will be saints on earth during the eschaton and that they will be persecuted, many even killed. But I question whether the Antichrist will successfully kill every single Gentile saint, as Wells argues, and I also do not think that “global genocide” should be offered as an explanation for the absence of an explicit reference to the church in the Book of Revelation.
B. Wells believes that the Gentile saints will be slaughtered, whereas God will preserve the Jewish saints until the time of the Second Coming. A question that occurred in my mind is why God has a different policy towards the Jewish saints than God has for the Gentile saints: Why does God preserve one group, but not the other? To his credit, Wells offers an answer to this question, and the answer is rather sensible. You will have to read the book to find out what it is! I will also add that, notwithstanding my reservations in (A.), I do think that Wells is wrestling with a real dilemma in Scripture. On the one hand, God wants to preserve the lives of the elect in the end-times (see Matthew 24:22). On the other hand, there are indications in biblical writings that righteous people in the end-times will be persecuted and even killed. How does Wells attempt to resolve this dilemma? He says that God will preserve the lives of the Jewish Christians, but not the Gentile Christians.
C. Wells has good arguments for his position regarding the rapture, but also undeveloped arguments. His best arguments appear in Appendix C, which is entitled “Rapture FAQs.” A good argument in that Appendix is that Jesus coming as a thief (see I Thessalonians 5:2) does not necessarily mean that the rapture is pretribulational, for Jesus says he will come as a thief in Revelation 16:15, and that chapter depicts events “just before the second coming” (Wells’ words). Wells also offers the interesting argument that the removal of the restrainer in II Thessalonians 2:6-7 refers, not to the rapture of the church before the rise of the Antichrist, but rather to Michael the archangel desisting from his restraint of the Antichrist (cp. Daniel 10:21; 12:1).
Wells’ argument about the Church of Philadelphia had potential but was undeveloped. Revelation 3:10 affirms that Jesus will keep the righteous Philadelphian church from the hour of temptation that will befall the world, and many pre-tribulationists see that verse as a text of support for the pre-tribulational rapture. Wells responds, however, that Jesus also implies in v 12 that the Philadelphian Christians are overcomers, and overcoming, in the Book of Revelation, often implies endurance of persecution (Revelation 12:11). For Wells, v 12 indicates that the Philadelphians, too, will suffer persecution at the hands of the Antichrist. That is a fairly decent argument, but how would Wells then interpret v 10, the verse that pre-tribulationists like to cite?
D. Revelation 7 talks about the 144,000 people from the tribes of Israel whom God protects from God’s wrath on the earth. The tribes of Dan and Ephraim are notably absent from that list, and Wells attempts to explain why. His explanation of Dan’s absence is rather conventional: Dan is left out because it is evil. Wells’ explanation for Ephraim’s absence was new, and interesting, to me. Many interpreters explain Ephraim’s absence the same way that they explain Dan’s: Ephraim was a center of idolatry in the Hebrew Bible, so Revelation 7 leaves it out. Wells, however, went a different route. He notes that Ephraim in Genesis 48:19 is called a multitude of nations, so he interprets Ephraim, not as a tribe, but as the Gentile Christians in the Book of Revelation, the great multitude of Christians from different nations in Revelation 7:9. For Wells, Ephraim is not listed among the 144,000 Israelites because Ephraim is not Israelite: it is a multitude of nations, or Gentiles.
This explanation raises questions, of course. So often in the Hebrew Bible, Ephraim is treated as an ethnically Israelite tribe, not as Gentiles. Wells does not account for this in his book. Wells critiques the post-millennialists and a-millennialists because they have a symbolic, non-literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation, but I wonder if his interpretation of Ephraim is itself symbolic, non-literal, or at least unfaithful to Ephraim’s literal, biblical significance.
At the same time, I think that Wells is wrestling with a real issue: How could Ephraim be a multitude of nations, if it were just one Israelite tribe? What did Jacob mean or envision when he called Ephraim a multitude of nations? I grew up in Armstrongism, and it embraced British-Israelism, as it claimed that the United States and Britain were descended from the lost ten tribes of Israel. My recollection is that Armstrongites believed that Ephraim was the British empire, and that was how Ephraim was a company of nations.
But there are alternative ways to explain Ephraim being a multitude of nations. Keil-Delitzsch interpret it in reference to Ephraim’s sizeable population in the times of the Hebrew Bible, and also its status as the head of the ten Northern tribes of Israel. Satisfying or not, that may be the best explanation out there.
E. Wells talks some about the psychological effects of the pre-trib rapture doctrine and his own doctrine. Wells can empathize with those who like the pre-trib doctrine because it offers them comfort: they are happy that they will not have to suffer the horrors of the Tribulation! On the one hand, Wells seems to be trying to reassure them that they will not lose that sense of comfort by embracing his position: they are still going to the same place (to be with God), even if that comes after their death at the hands of the Antichrist, rather than before the Tribulation! That is an interesting way to look at the situation: Why fear anything, including the Tribulation, if your destiny is to be with God? On the other hand, Wells appears to acknowledge that embracing his position does entail hardship that is absent from the pre-trib position. For Wells, if Gentile Christians will be slaughtered at the hands of the Antichrist, then they need to prepare themselves spiritually for that, becoming stronger in their faith.
F. Wells tends to approach the Book of Revelation with a newspaper in hand, or, at least, with his own observations of current events. That leads him to intriguing interpretations. I do not regard them as authoritative, but as intriguing.
G. The book could have been better organized and better written. Its grammar was all right. But it could be rather elliptical, at times. Perhaps the book would have been better had Wells presented at the outset his own personal story of how he changed his mind on the rapture.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Bookcrash. My review is honest!
Saturday, February 4, 2017
Book Write-Up: The Jesus Club, by Brian Barcelona
Brian Barcelona. The Jesus Club: Incredible True Stories of How God Is Moving in Our High Schools. Bloomington, Minnesota: Chosen Books, 2017. See here to buy the book.
According to the back cover of the book: “Brian Barcelona is the founder of One Voice Student Missions. A leader on the forefront of youth evangelism, Brian is calling the high school students of America to surrender their lives to Jesus and calling the Church to our most unreached mission field: public high schools.”
This description gives you an idea of what the book is about: revival that is taking place at public high schools. Barcelona talks about how he was called to this mission, the numerous high school students who are interested in the Gospel, how some of those students were gang members, and the healing of psychological and physical maladies that is occurring in the revival. Barcelona also provides his personal background as a lonely atheist who became a Christian.
I am not sure what to make of the healing stories, including the healing of deafness that Barcelona says he personally observed. But I do like how Barcelona comes across in this book: as someone who does not see himself as particularly special, and yet God uses him because he said “yes” to what God wanted him to do. Barcelona seems to see his role as almost incidental: Barcelona is there, but God is really the one doing the work.
Overall, the book does not have a lot of theological meat, and perhaps that would have been improved had Barcelona talked more about the content of his sermons or the spiritual transformation of people: the concrete transformations in people’s character that occurred after they accepted the Gospel. The latter occurs in Jonathan Edwards’ A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton.
But the occasions on which Barcelona discusses theological topics are interesting. On pages 156 and 158, for example, Barcelona seems to engage the topic of once-saved-always-saved and why there are people who receive Christ, yet go back to living as they lived before.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Cross Focused Reviews. My review is honest!
According to the back cover of the book: “Brian Barcelona is the founder of One Voice Student Missions. A leader on the forefront of youth evangelism, Brian is calling the high school students of America to surrender their lives to Jesus and calling the Church to our most unreached mission field: public high schools.”
This description gives you an idea of what the book is about: revival that is taking place at public high schools. Barcelona talks about how he was called to this mission, the numerous high school students who are interested in the Gospel, how some of those students were gang members, and the healing of psychological and physical maladies that is occurring in the revival. Barcelona also provides his personal background as a lonely atheist who became a Christian.
I am not sure what to make of the healing stories, including the healing of deafness that Barcelona says he personally observed. But I do like how Barcelona comes across in this book: as someone who does not see himself as particularly special, and yet God uses him because he said “yes” to what God wanted him to do. Barcelona seems to see his role as almost incidental: Barcelona is there, but God is really the one doing the work.
Overall, the book does not have a lot of theological meat, and perhaps that would have been improved had Barcelona talked more about the content of his sermons or the spiritual transformation of people: the concrete transformations in people’s character that occurred after they accepted the Gospel. The latter occurs in Jonathan Edwards’ A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton.
But the occasions on which Barcelona discusses theological topics are interesting. On pages 156 and 158, for example, Barcelona seems to engage the topic of once-saved-always-saved and why there are people who receive Christ, yet go back to living as they lived before.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Cross Focused Reviews. My review is honest!
Friday, February 3, 2017
Book Write-Up: King's Folly, by Jill Williamson
Jill Williamson. King’s Folly. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2016. See here to buy the book.
King’s Folly is the first book of the “Kinsman Chronicles” series. It is actually a combination of three novellas: Darkness Reigns, The Heir War, and The End of All Things. I checked this book out from the library because Bethany House will be sending me a copy of the book’s sequel.
This is a fantasy work. At the beginning of the book, author Jill Williamson has provided a list of key characters. She lists them by country and tells us who they are. She also provides in that section a list of the gods and goddesses who will be mentioned in this book. There is also a map at the beginning.
The main country in this book is Armania. There are earthquakes, which are partly a result of the greedy mining of unstable land, but which many believe is the result of divine retribution. King Echad of Armania is sacrificing people to Barthos, the god of the earth/soil. Prince Wilek believes that his father is superstitious. Meanwhile, there is dispute about who will succeed Echad: Wilek is an option, but so is the sinister Janek, who may not even be the son of Echad but rather the son of the court wizard; there is also a prophecy in the sacred books that a Messiah from outside of Armania will rule it. The religious landscape of Armania is featured in this book. Arman is the father god, and there is a belief among some that he alone should be worshiped. But that belief was supplanted by those in the establishment who were against privileging one god, thinking this would make the god power-hungry. They advise people to select five gods to worship.
Trevn is another son of Echad and is in love with Mielle, the servant of Lady Zeroah of the land of Sarikar. He receives helpful love advice. Zeroah is to marry Wilek, as a way to foster an alliance between the two countries, but Wilek is unsure how exactly to interact with her.
Another country is Magonia. Charlon flees there from kidnappers and will become heir to the queen herself. The queen has a close relationship with Magon, the goddess of magic, and Charlon must develop that relationship as well. There is a prophecy that a great figure from Magon will pose a threat to Armania.
The world that this book portrays is intriguing, and there are endearing scenes. The writing-style could be rather dry, and I had to pay close attention to know what was going on. The prose was simple enough, but I was not always sure what was happening. I’ve had difficulty getting into a lot of the fantasy books that I have read: I do finish them, but I get lost when I am reading them. The book was a rather comfortable read, though.
While the book did get into religion, I was wondering what exactly was so praiseworthy about Arman. He comes across as a jealous, wrathful deity, who is causing the earthquakes because people don’t worship him only. Of course, people can say that sounds like the biblical god. But perhaps the biblical God can be rehabilitated by adding other considerations: God realizes that only God can fulfill us and does not want us to worship what is inferior. This book presented other gods as dead-ends, or as roads to undesirable destinations, but it did not explain, as far as I can recall, why Arman is worthy of praise.
The next book should be interesting.
This review is informal and quickly-written. Please keep that in mind after reading it.
King’s Folly is the first book of the “Kinsman Chronicles” series. It is actually a combination of three novellas: Darkness Reigns, The Heir War, and The End of All Things. I checked this book out from the library because Bethany House will be sending me a copy of the book’s sequel.
This is a fantasy work. At the beginning of the book, author Jill Williamson has provided a list of key characters. She lists them by country and tells us who they are. She also provides in that section a list of the gods and goddesses who will be mentioned in this book. There is also a map at the beginning.
The main country in this book is Armania. There are earthquakes, which are partly a result of the greedy mining of unstable land, but which many believe is the result of divine retribution. King Echad of Armania is sacrificing people to Barthos, the god of the earth/soil. Prince Wilek believes that his father is superstitious. Meanwhile, there is dispute about who will succeed Echad: Wilek is an option, but so is the sinister Janek, who may not even be the son of Echad but rather the son of the court wizard; there is also a prophecy in the sacred books that a Messiah from outside of Armania will rule it. The religious landscape of Armania is featured in this book. Arman is the father god, and there is a belief among some that he alone should be worshiped. But that belief was supplanted by those in the establishment who were against privileging one god, thinking this would make the god power-hungry. They advise people to select five gods to worship.
Trevn is another son of Echad and is in love with Mielle, the servant of Lady Zeroah of the land of Sarikar. He receives helpful love advice. Zeroah is to marry Wilek, as a way to foster an alliance between the two countries, but Wilek is unsure how exactly to interact with her.
Another country is Magonia. Charlon flees there from kidnappers and will become heir to the queen herself. The queen has a close relationship with Magon, the goddess of magic, and Charlon must develop that relationship as well. There is a prophecy that a great figure from Magon will pose a threat to Armania.
The world that this book portrays is intriguing, and there are endearing scenes. The writing-style could be rather dry, and I had to pay close attention to know what was going on. The prose was simple enough, but I was not always sure what was happening. I’ve had difficulty getting into a lot of the fantasy books that I have read: I do finish them, but I get lost when I am reading them. The book was a rather comfortable read, though.
While the book did get into religion, I was wondering what exactly was so praiseworthy about Arman. He comes across as a jealous, wrathful deity, who is causing the earthquakes because people don’t worship him only. Of course, people can say that sounds like the biblical god. But perhaps the biblical God can be rehabilitated by adding other considerations: God realizes that only God can fulfill us and does not want us to worship what is inferior. This book presented other gods as dead-ends, or as roads to undesirable destinations, but it did not explain, as far as I can recall, why Arman is worthy of praise.
The next book should be interesting.
This review is informal and quickly-written. Please keep that in mind after reading it.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Current Events Write-Up: Travel Ban, Gorsuch, Mary Tyler Moore, and More
Time for another Current Events Write-Up, where I link to news and opinion pieces and comment on them.
The Travel Ban
I really didn’t want to write about the Travel Ban. I feel a variety of emotions about it, and these emotions are conflicting. I feel sickness at the ban on account of the innocent people it is affecting; annoyance at the progressives who are challenging the ban; admiration for those who are challenging the ban, since that perhaps can lead to the ban being reformed; and a recognition that the ban is an attempt to address a problem.
This National Review article by David French did an effective job in explaining what the ban was trying to solve and comparing the ban to previous policies on refugees and travel.
There were articles about the negative effects of the ban on business and science (see here and here). Maybe these negative effects are becoming ironed-out, depending on the location. Still, what I found ironic was this: Many right-wingers have said that we should welcome educated immigrants who will contribute to America, rather than those who will drain the country’s resources. But here are educated immigrants who are contributing to America, and the travel ban was having a negative impact on them.
Various right-wing sites are saying that prominent Democrats—-Democrats who are prominent even today—-were against allowing South Vietnamese refugees and immigrants into the U.S. during the Ford Administration. These Democrats feared that these refugees would drain the system, in a time when there were Americans who needed employment and help. Some of the right-wing sites referred to a 2007 NPR interview of Julia Taft, who headed President Gerald Ford’s Inter-Agency Task Force on Indochinese Refugee Resettlement. Here is that interview. And here is an article about the Vietnamese refugees.
But we can point out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of both sides (left and right) all day. The question should be, “What is the right thing to do?” That is a difficult question. I agree with a biblical scholar who said that, from a Christian standpoint, there are a variety of biblical considerations that may be relevant to this situation: compassion for the refugees, wisdom in maintaining the country’s security, and even love for enemies. I would add the consideration of faith in God: should we let the refugees in out of compassion and trust that God will protect us? Faith can entail risk. I do not know the answers to these questions. I have been annoyed, though, by progressive Christians who bombastically declare that you cannot be a Christian and support turning away refugees. I agree that being a Christian should entail compassion for everyone, including refugees. But the progressive Christians are over-simplifying the issue, and acting as if they are profound as they do so.
Neil Gorsuch
President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to be a Supreme Court justice. Of course, there are progressives who are concerned that he is too right-wing. Maybe he is on the conservative side, but I think that there are reasons for progressives to be optimistic.
First, according to this Politico article, Gorsuch defers to the law when it comes to regulations, not agencies’ tendency to apply regulations as they see fit. Could that run contrary to President Trump’s desire to de-regulate?
Second, Keal Katyal, who was acting Solicitor General in the Obama Administration, encourages liberals to support Gorsuch, and one reason is that Gorsuch has decided in ways that favor immigrants.
Third, Gorsuch opposed a cop arresting a student who was burping in class. Could that inclination lead him to oppose police overreach, including police abuse of minorities?
Fourth, Lawrence Pratt of Gun Owners of America and attorney William Olson argue that Gorsuch has compromised on the Second Amendment. I have reservations about Gorsuch’s stance in the case that they discuss: what the police did strikes me as overreach, which I criticized above (not that I am a lawyer)! Still, maybe Gorsuch is not a knee-jerk gun rights advocate.
Mary Tyler Moore
Actress Mary Tyler Moore passed on. According to Michael Trinklein, who interviewed Moore, Moore was not exactly a devotee of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. Moore was all for expanding opportunities for women in the work place, but Moore also was concerned that Friedan and Steinem were dismissing the importance of mothers raising their children. Trinklein also suggests that Mary Tyler Moore’s sunny demeanor on her show was a contrast to that of Friedan and Steinem.
Other
There was sad news this past week. A drone in Yemen killed an 8-year old girl. And Trump seems to support assisting the rebels in Syria. I was hoping that Trump would move America away from that sort of interventionist foreign policy. Sadly, I may be mistaken.
Trump critics were making a federal case about Melania frowning at Trump’s inauguration, as if she was upset at something Trump said. This article at the Federalist offers an alternative interpretation, which strikes me as reasonable.
White House staffer Omarosa Manigault debated the hosts of The View. In my opinion, Omarosa crossed the line when she expressed hope that Joy would find a man in her life: that struck me as a put-down disquised as an expression of hope. Still, I appreciated some things that Omarosa had to say. Omarosa contrasted President Obama’s approach to the inner-cities with the approach that she says President Trump will take. According to Omarosa, Trump has a more strategic approach, whereas Obama assumed that addressing the nation’s problems will take care of the inner-cities. Omarosa also talked about the tragic death of her brother.
Right-wing columnist John Hawkins answered twenty questions that liberals had for him. I do not agree with everything Hawkins said in that piece, especially on public assistance. I wish that he expressed more appreciation for the challenges that many people have when it comes to becoming financially self-supporting. At the same time, I was intrigued by his discussion of Steve Bannon: how there are people he respects who criticize Bannon, and people he respects who praise Bannon.
The AP: “California’s governor wants courts to stop suspending driver’s licenses because of unpaid traffic fines. Gov. Jerry Brown says the practice hurts those who can’t afford to pay and doesn’t help the state collect. Brown calls for ending the practice as part of his budget proposal.”
I agree with Governor Brown on this. We should consider the impact policies have on the poor and the economically struggling.
The Travel Ban
I really didn’t want to write about the Travel Ban. I feel a variety of emotions about it, and these emotions are conflicting. I feel sickness at the ban on account of the innocent people it is affecting; annoyance at the progressives who are challenging the ban; admiration for those who are challenging the ban, since that perhaps can lead to the ban being reformed; and a recognition that the ban is an attempt to address a problem.
This National Review article by David French did an effective job in explaining what the ban was trying to solve and comparing the ban to previous policies on refugees and travel.
There were articles about the negative effects of the ban on business and science (see here and here). Maybe these negative effects are becoming ironed-out, depending on the location. Still, what I found ironic was this: Many right-wingers have said that we should welcome educated immigrants who will contribute to America, rather than those who will drain the country’s resources. But here are educated immigrants who are contributing to America, and the travel ban was having a negative impact on them.
Various right-wing sites are saying that prominent Democrats—-Democrats who are prominent even today—-were against allowing South Vietnamese refugees and immigrants into the U.S. during the Ford Administration. These Democrats feared that these refugees would drain the system, in a time when there were Americans who needed employment and help. Some of the right-wing sites referred to a 2007 NPR interview of Julia Taft, who headed President Gerald Ford’s Inter-Agency Task Force on Indochinese Refugee Resettlement. Here is that interview. And here is an article about the Vietnamese refugees.
But we can point out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of both sides (left and right) all day. The question should be, “What is the right thing to do?” That is a difficult question. I agree with a biblical scholar who said that, from a Christian standpoint, there are a variety of biblical considerations that may be relevant to this situation: compassion for the refugees, wisdom in maintaining the country’s security, and even love for enemies. I would add the consideration of faith in God: should we let the refugees in out of compassion and trust that God will protect us? Faith can entail risk. I do not know the answers to these questions. I have been annoyed, though, by progressive Christians who bombastically declare that you cannot be a Christian and support turning away refugees. I agree that being a Christian should entail compassion for everyone, including refugees. But the progressive Christians are over-simplifying the issue, and acting as if they are profound as they do so.
Neil Gorsuch
President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to be a Supreme Court justice. Of course, there are progressives who are concerned that he is too right-wing. Maybe he is on the conservative side, but I think that there are reasons for progressives to be optimistic.
First, according to this Politico article, Gorsuch defers to the law when it comes to regulations, not agencies’ tendency to apply regulations as they see fit. Could that run contrary to President Trump’s desire to de-regulate?
Second, Keal Katyal, who was acting Solicitor General in the Obama Administration, encourages liberals to support Gorsuch, and one reason is that Gorsuch has decided in ways that favor immigrants.
Third, Gorsuch opposed a cop arresting a student who was burping in class. Could that inclination lead him to oppose police overreach, including police abuse of minorities?
Fourth, Lawrence Pratt of Gun Owners of America and attorney William Olson argue that Gorsuch has compromised on the Second Amendment. I have reservations about Gorsuch’s stance in the case that they discuss: what the police did strikes me as overreach, which I criticized above (not that I am a lawyer)! Still, maybe Gorsuch is not a knee-jerk gun rights advocate.
Mary Tyler Moore
Actress Mary Tyler Moore passed on. According to Michael Trinklein, who interviewed Moore, Moore was not exactly a devotee of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. Moore was all for expanding opportunities for women in the work place, but Moore also was concerned that Friedan and Steinem were dismissing the importance of mothers raising their children. Trinklein also suggests that Mary Tyler Moore’s sunny demeanor on her show was a contrast to that of Friedan and Steinem.
Other
There was sad news this past week. A drone in Yemen killed an 8-year old girl. And Trump seems to support assisting the rebels in Syria. I was hoping that Trump would move America away from that sort of interventionist foreign policy. Sadly, I may be mistaken.
Trump critics were making a federal case about Melania frowning at Trump’s inauguration, as if she was upset at something Trump said. This article at the Federalist offers an alternative interpretation, which strikes me as reasonable.
White House staffer Omarosa Manigault debated the hosts of The View. In my opinion, Omarosa crossed the line when she expressed hope that Joy would find a man in her life: that struck me as a put-down disquised as an expression of hope. Still, I appreciated some things that Omarosa had to say. Omarosa contrasted President Obama’s approach to the inner-cities with the approach that she says President Trump will take. According to Omarosa, Trump has a more strategic approach, whereas Obama assumed that addressing the nation’s problems will take care of the inner-cities. Omarosa also talked about the tragic death of her brother.
Right-wing columnist John Hawkins answered twenty questions that liberals had for him. I do not agree with everything Hawkins said in that piece, especially on public assistance. I wish that he expressed more appreciation for the challenges that many people have when it comes to becoming financially self-supporting. At the same time, I was intrigued by his discussion of Steve Bannon: how there are people he respects who criticize Bannon, and people he respects who praise Bannon.
The AP: “California’s governor wants courts to stop suspending driver’s licenses because of unpaid traffic fines. Gov. Jerry Brown says the practice hurts those who can’t afford to pay and doesn’t help the state collect. Brown calls for ending the practice as part of his budget proposal.”
I agree with Governor Brown on this. We should consider the impact policies have on the poor and the economically struggling.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Book Write-Up: 90 Days in John 14-17, Romans, James, by Timothy Keller and Sam Allberry
Timothy Keller and Sam Allberry. 90 Days in John 14-17, Romans, James. The Good Book Company, 2017. See here to purchase the book.
Timothy Keller and Sam Allberry are pastors. As the title indicates, this book goes through John 14-17, Romans, and James.
An advantage to this book is that it clarifies biblical passages. For example, Romans 14 discusses how stronger Christians who eat meat are to respect the scruples of the weaker Christians who do not eat meat. Paul in v 15 exhorts the stronger Christians not to destroy the weaker Christians for the sake of meat. How can eating meat around weaker Christians destroy them? According to Keller and Allberry, if the weaker Christians violate their conscience and eat meat just to fit in, then they are placing themselves on the slippery slope of disregarding their conscience. That is a helpful way to make sense of the passage.
The interpretation of James 1:5-8 was also helpful, at least in its main point. James 1:5-8 says that people who ask God for wisdom will receive it, unless they waver or are double-minded. Keller and Allberry state that the passage does NOT mean that “If you have ever questioned or struggled or wrestled, don’t expect God to give you anything.” Rather, they think it means that “If you come to God hedging your bets—-asking for help while also looking elsewhere for help—-then don’t expect to find help from the Lord.” This is unclear: are Keller and Allberry saying that a person should just ask God for help, wait, and do nothing else practically to solve their problems? Their main point, though, is that a person should be sincere in asking God for wisdom: a person should not just be hedging his or her bets, merely sampling God. That makes sense.
The book also wrestles with the question of whether James 1:14-15 means that every sick Christian will be healed after being anointed with oil. Overall, this is an edifying book, which addressed thought-provoking issues.
The book was not exactly academic, though. It largely focused on the text of Scripture and Scripture application instead of quoting secondary sources or renowned Christian thinkers. That is all right, but readers should keep in mind that there are more interpretations out there. For instance, Paul in Romans 2:21 is discussing the hypocrisy of certain Jews, and he asks them if they claim to abhor idolatry, while robbing temples. Keller and Allberry state that “there is no record of Jews taking idol-statues from pagan temples,” so they interpret Paul as figurative in this verse: “They may ‘abhor idols’ outwardly, but if inwardly they find meaning in power, comfort, possessions, sex etc., then they are idolaters.”
The thing is, there is a legitimate way to interpret that passage that is literal. Lloyd Gaston, on page 231 of Paul and the Torah, offers his view of what Paul may have had in mind in Romans 2:21:
“[Josephus] uses the hierosyl- root to refer to robbery from the temple contributions of Jews from Asia in Ant. 16.45, 164, 168; to describe robbery from the Jerusalem temple itself in JW 1.654 (=Ant. 17.163), 5.562, and Ant. 12.359; and in referring to Manetho’s accusation that Jews robbed Egyptian temples before the Exodus (AgAp 1.249, 318f).”
There is a possibility that Gaston, Keller, and Allberry are all correct: the Jews who robbed from the Jerusalem temple were idolaters in the sense that they valued money over God’s commandment not to steal. Still, the treatment of Romans 2:21 by Keller and Allberry highlights that, overall, this book is more of a homiletic commentary than a historical commentary. Some may like this. Personally, I think the book would have been richer had it been a mixture of both.
The book contains a tension that is characteristic of many Reformed books, and even Christian books that address grace and assurance of salvation. On the one hand, Keller and Allberry stress that salvation is a gift of grace: we do not have to scale a mountain to receive it; we are accepted by God when we have faith in what God has done; and we cannot trust our own efforts to keep God’s standards to earn salvation, since we fall short. On the other hand, Keller and Allberry say that obedience to God is a sign that we have genuinely been saved and that not all who profess to be Christians are actual Christians. I think that the two ideas run contrary to each other, at least in terms of the psychological effect that they can have on the believer. The first idea is comforting, the second, not so much. The tension is understandable, though, considering the different biblical texts with which Keller and Allberry are interacting, and the co-existing themes of grace and practical righteousness within the Bible.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Cross Focused Reviews. My review is honest!
Timothy Keller and Sam Allberry are pastors. As the title indicates, this book goes through John 14-17, Romans, and James.
An advantage to this book is that it clarifies biblical passages. For example, Romans 14 discusses how stronger Christians who eat meat are to respect the scruples of the weaker Christians who do not eat meat. Paul in v 15 exhorts the stronger Christians not to destroy the weaker Christians for the sake of meat. How can eating meat around weaker Christians destroy them? According to Keller and Allberry, if the weaker Christians violate their conscience and eat meat just to fit in, then they are placing themselves on the slippery slope of disregarding their conscience. That is a helpful way to make sense of the passage.
The interpretation of James 1:5-8 was also helpful, at least in its main point. James 1:5-8 says that people who ask God for wisdom will receive it, unless they waver or are double-minded. Keller and Allberry state that the passage does NOT mean that “If you have ever questioned or struggled or wrestled, don’t expect God to give you anything.” Rather, they think it means that “If you come to God hedging your bets—-asking for help while also looking elsewhere for help—-then don’t expect to find help from the Lord.” This is unclear: are Keller and Allberry saying that a person should just ask God for help, wait, and do nothing else practically to solve their problems? Their main point, though, is that a person should be sincere in asking God for wisdom: a person should not just be hedging his or her bets, merely sampling God. That makes sense.
The book also wrestles with the question of whether James 1:14-15 means that every sick Christian will be healed after being anointed with oil. Overall, this is an edifying book, which addressed thought-provoking issues.
The book was not exactly academic, though. It largely focused on the text of Scripture and Scripture application instead of quoting secondary sources or renowned Christian thinkers. That is all right, but readers should keep in mind that there are more interpretations out there. For instance, Paul in Romans 2:21 is discussing the hypocrisy of certain Jews, and he asks them if they claim to abhor idolatry, while robbing temples. Keller and Allberry state that “there is no record of Jews taking idol-statues from pagan temples,” so they interpret Paul as figurative in this verse: “They may ‘abhor idols’ outwardly, but if inwardly they find meaning in power, comfort, possessions, sex etc., then they are idolaters.”
The thing is, there is a legitimate way to interpret that passage that is literal. Lloyd Gaston, on page 231 of Paul and the Torah, offers his view of what Paul may have had in mind in Romans 2:21:
“[Josephus] uses the hierosyl- root to refer to robbery from the temple contributions of Jews from Asia in Ant. 16.45, 164, 168; to describe robbery from the Jerusalem temple itself in JW 1.654 (=Ant. 17.163), 5.562, and Ant. 12.359; and in referring to Manetho’s accusation that Jews robbed Egyptian temples before the Exodus (AgAp 1.249, 318f).”
There is a possibility that Gaston, Keller, and Allberry are all correct: the Jews who robbed from the Jerusalem temple were idolaters in the sense that they valued money over God’s commandment not to steal. Still, the treatment of Romans 2:21 by Keller and Allberry highlights that, overall, this book is more of a homiletic commentary than a historical commentary. Some may like this. Personally, I think the book would have been richer had it been a mixture of both.
The book contains a tension that is characteristic of many Reformed books, and even Christian books that address grace and assurance of salvation. On the one hand, Keller and Allberry stress that salvation is a gift of grace: we do not have to scale a mountain to receive it; we are accepted by God when we have faith in what God has done; and we cannot trust our own efforts to keep God’s standards to earn salvation, since we fall short. On the other hand, Keller and Allberry say that obedience to God is a sign that we have genuinely been saved and that not all who profess to be Christians are actual Christians. I think that the two ideas run contrary to each other, at least in terms of the psychological effect that they can have on the believer. The first idea is comforting, the second, not so much. The tension is understandable, though, considering the different biblical texts with which Keller and Allberry are interacting, and the co-existing themes of grace and practical righteousness within the Bible.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Cross Focused Reviews. My review is honest!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)