Current Events Write-Up: 6/30/2018

Time for my weekly Current Events Write-Up!  These are articles and opinion pieces that I found interesting, and I am sure there is another side to what they present.

Townhall: “CFPB Settlement Threatens to Destabilize Student Loan Market,” by Shannon Watkins

“Private student loans might soon become more difficult to obtain…[T]he stability of the securitization industry helps foster a healthy economy. One way it does so is by connecting investors to those who need loans. The more capital that is made available to student loans, the lower the interest rates borrowers will have to pay. In other words, the more competition that exists between investors, the lower the interest rates will be for borrowers.”  Maybe.  My understanding, though, is that private student loan servicers charge high interest rates.

Federalist Radio Hour: “Why Does Everybody Hate Each Other? Politics, Trust, And Twitter”

Some of these episodes I like better than others!  This one, I liked.  Will Rahn and Ben Domenech talk about how the hard Left cheapens terms like “Nazi” to the point that they become meaningless.  Rahn then says that the Right went through something similar.  It called Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi socialists.  Now, who is the most popular politician in America?  A self-professed socialist (Bernie)!  This episode was made before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s stunning victory in New York.  I doubt that an overt Nazi in the U.S. will become a popular politician, but you get the point: some words get so overused, that their effectiveness as an insult becomes diminished.

Yahoo News: “The Democratic Socialists of America show their muscle in New York congressional upset,” by Hunter Walker and Christopher Wilson

This article is a lengthy narration about Ocasio-Cortez’s recent upset.  It describes how powerful Joe Crowley was, how the DSA decides whom to endorse, and other Democratic Socialists who are running for office.

Townhall: “Telling the Truth on Trade With China,” by Veronique de Rugy

China gets a lot of criticism for piracy of intellectual property and for cornering the steel market.  Even some conservatives promote protectionism as a solution to this.  Veronique de Rugy not only disagrees with this approach, but she finds it ironic.  Conservatives are people who believe that state-run economies do not work, yet the ones supporting protectionism are confident that China will triumph economically.  Case in point: Veronique states that, by producing a lot of steel, China is producing fewer non-steel materials, allowing the U.S. to take more of that market.

Townhall: “Yemen’s Seaport Battle for Food and the Future,” by Austin Bay

Saudi Arabia and Iran compete for influence in the strategic country of Yemen.

Book Write-Up: The Essential Jonathan Edwards

Owen Strachan and Douglas A. Sweeney.  The Essential Jonathan Edwards: An Introduction to the Life and Teaching of America’s Greatest Theologian.  Moody, 2018.  See here to purchase the book.

Owen Strachan teaches Christian theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Douglas A. Sweeney teaches church history and the history of Christian thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and he served at Yale as a contributing editor on its Works of Jonathan Edwards series.  Jonathan Edwards was an eighteenth century American Reformed pastor and theologian.  Many know him from his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which they may have read in high school.  But Edwards wrote many other works, as well.  This book, The Essential Jonathan Edwards, is a condensed version of the five-volume Essential Edwards Collection.

The book has five parts, with chapters in each part.  Part 1, “Lover of God,” is about Edwards’ life.  Part 2, “Beauty,” covers Edwards’ thought on the beauty of God, creation, Christ, the church, and the Trinity.  Part 3 is entitled “The Good Life.”  It discusses how the Christian life coincides with happiness, sin’s disruption of the good life, the way that conversion orients believers and gives them a taste and an appreciation for the divine, and the importance of reading Scripture in preparing a person for conversion and feeding believers.  Part 4, “True Christianity,” engages the difference between authentic Christianity and being merely a nominal Christian.  It examines Edwards’ thoughts on how people can identify whether they are authentic Christians.  It also tells the story of two Christians: David Brainerd, a friend of Edwards who was a missionary to Native Americans, and Abigail Hutchinson, a bedridden convert in the first Great Awakening.  Part 5 concerns “Heaven and Hell.”  There is a chapter about hell’s eternity and the pain that unbelievers experience from God’s intense wrath at their sin.  There is also a chapter about heaven and how it is a world of love, where God is glorified and jealousy is absent.

The book can be called a homiletical introduction to Edwards.  Part 1 is like a Sunday school lesson on Edwards’ life.  Strachan and Sweeney would mention and describe Edwards’ friendship with the successful evangelist George Whitfield, for example, then they would talk about the importance of not being jealous and of being more concerned about the promulgation of the Gospel.  Edwards’ solitude is held up as an example to Christians, as is his love for and interaction with his family.  This part is rather hagiographical, yet it does acknowledge that Edwards was flawed, as when he supported slavery and when he failed to handle certain interpersonal interactions that well.  Some of his weaknesses coincided with his strengths, Strachan and Sweeney contend.  Overall, Strachan and Sweeney are sympathetic towards Edwards.  They seem to agree with him on communion being restricted to those who can demonstrate that they are true believers, one of the controversies that led to Edwards’ removal from the pastorate.  His grisly teachings on hell are upheld as an example for today’s church, which ignores or neglects the doctrine.

The book often quotes passages from Edwards’ writings, then comments on them in a homiletical fashion.  The authors’ prose is very lucid, so it is like the reader is being given a friendly tour through Edwards’ thought.

This book is a satisfying and an edifying read.  Parts of it did not teach me anything that I did not previously know, but it was enjoyable to mull over such concepts as the necessity and the eternity of God with Edwards.  Edwards is a compelling example of one who was enamored with God and with what he saw of God in the world around him.  There were parts of the book that taught me something new, or something that I had not considered before.  Edwards’ attraction to his wife’s spiritual qualities, his struggle to find a pastorate, his articulation of the Trinity, and the Old Testament passages that he applied to hell are examples of this.

One can also feel discouragement yet hope in reading this book.  Reading the discussions on how to identify oneself as a true Christian, I found myself saying, “Well, I guess I flunk that test, and I cannot picture myself ever being THAT good!”  In reading Edwards’ graphic discussions of hell, I thought, “Wow, I hope that’s not how things are!”  Yet, Edwards offered people hope.  He encouraged them to seek the Lord while they can, to go to God for mercy.  He said that Bible reading can prepare them for conversion, even if they do not feel particularly converted right now.  And the book upholds David Brainerd as an example of one who struggled with depression and a long fruitlessness in ministry yet persevered.

Some discussions could have been developed more: the one on Edwards’ Freedom of the Will, for example, failed to highlight Edwards’ point that God somehow causes people’s choices.  Still, the book is an effective introduction to Edwards’ thought.  It can be a spiritual feast to newcomers and to those who have already read Edwards.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest!

Book Write-Up: Believe Me, by John Fea

John Fea.  Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump.  William B. Eerdmans, 2018.  See here to purchase the book.

John Fea teaches American history at Messiah College.

According to Fea, “On November 8, 2016, 81 percent of self-described white evangelicals helped vote Donald Trump into the White House” (page 5).  This was a higher percentage than the white evangelicals who voted for George W. Bush (2000, 2004), John McCain (2008), and Mitt Romney (2012).

Fea is disturbed by this.  For one, he believes that it is a poor witness to non-believers.  Evangelicals are supporting a man who, according to Fea, so obviously fails to exemplify the fruit of the Spirit and instead demonstrates the works of the flesh.  Not only that, but Trump falls short of the civic character that one would expect from any President.  By supporting such a figure, evangelicals alienate people from evangelicalism.  The irony is that some of the prominent evangelicals who support Donald Trump loudly and eloquently proclaimed that character mattered in a leader when Bill Clinton was President.

Second, Fea expresses doubt that political engagement is the way to go for evangelicals.  Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not stop abortion.  The resources that conservative evangelicals spend on political engagement to stop abortion can be better spent trying to stop abortion on a personal level, by, for example, helping women with an unintended pregnancy.  Access to political power also has a corrupting influence on white evangelicals.  They fail to be a prophetic voice towards Trump because they love to have their seat at the table, with the influence, prestige, and perks that accompany that.  But they are being played.  Fea expresses some ambivalence on whether Christians should be involved in the political process, for he appeals to the Civil Rights Movement as a positive example of this.  That movement, however, exemplified faith and hope rather than fear and did not hesitate to challenge authorities prophetically.

Fea argues that fear is the motivating factor behind white evangelical support for Donald Trump.  He tells the story of how fear has been a salient feature of American Christianity.  American Puritans saw their New England settlement as a new Israel and feared that God would punish them for disobedience.  Christians with this sort of fear would later support the Federalist Party, which supported a strong central government, over Thomas Jefferson’s more liberal Democratic-Republican Party.  Many white American Protestants had a fear of Catholic immigrants, a number of whom sided with the Protestants’ Native American enemies and supposedly expanded the influence of the Pope.  Some white American Protestants expressed fear of the Illuminati, a subversive movement in Europe that sought to undermine Christianity.  In the South, many white American Christians believed that slavery was a biblical institution and feared violent slave revolts.  Years later, a number of white evangelicals feared Muslims, Barack Obama for supposedly being a foreigner, and Hillary Clinton.

Why did they end up embracing Trump, who had lacked a history of supporting their causes and lived a lifestyle that contradicted their values?  According to Fea, they were looking for a strongman who would protect them and push their agenda.  They felt as if their religious liberty and America’s Christian heritage were under attack by the Obama Administration, so they gravitated towards a blunt, apparently fearless candidate who wanted their support.  Fea does not see the white evangelicals who supported Trump as the wave of the future, however, but regards such support as a last-ditched attempt to win the culture wars.  Younger evangelicals tend to have a different attitude.  Fea wonders if the older evangelicals can do more good by being a faithful presence rather than seeking to change the nation through political partisanship.

Some thoughts:

A.  Overall, Fea is a compelling storyteller, which is not to say that he makes things up but rather that he tells his narrative well.  He tells the story of the 2016 Presidential race, as different evangelicals supported different candidates in the Republican primaries.  Intellectual white evangelicals gravitated towards Marco Rubio, whereas certain prominent prosperity preachers liked Trump.  Fea’s survey of American religious history was also a compelling read.  Fea’s overall criticisms of Trump and the white evangelicals who support him were rather banal, and Fea’s attempts to be profound and rhetorically eloquent got tiresome, at times.  But the book is still worthwhile on account of its information about history, politics, and the beliefs of certain Christians (i.e., the INC prophets and apostles).  In addition, the book had some interesting insights, as when Fea said that conservative evangelicals want to say more than that their ideas are good ideas, for they claim that their ideas flow out of America’s very heritage.  There are some topics about which I am still curious (i.e., why did the Founders prohibit a national established church but not established churches in states?), but that motivates me to want to read Fea’s book on whether America is a Christian nation.

B.  Fea’s narrative is largely negative towards the religious right, but it does have more nuance than conventional left-wing narratives.  For example, many left-wing narratives flatly state that America was not a Christian nation.  While Fea departs from the religious right’s narrative, he acknowledges that states in America’s early days had established churches, even after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.  Many left-wing narratives assert that racism was a motivating factor behind the rise of the religious right, as white conservative Christians opposed government interference in their segregation academies.  Fea states, however, that a number of those academies had begun to admit African-Americans before the religious right took off.

C.  Fea does well to question whether political opposition to abortion will truly reduce abortion.  At the same time, his discussion of religious liberty issues was sorely lacking.  Religious liberty issues are present in this book, but there is little sympathy for conservative evangelicals who believe that the government under President Barack Obama attacked their right to act according to their religious convictions.  Bakers who refuse to bake cakes for same-sex weddings have had to pay huge fines.  Maybe political activity will not create a conservative Christian utopia, but is it not at least understandable that conservative evangelicals would want someone in power who would be sympathetic towards them?  These issues are complicated, as there are legitimate fears that people could deny others of their rights and liberty in the name of “religious freedom.”  Still, that white evangelicals would feel inconvenienced or persecuted by President Obama’s policies and would desire a leader who would have different policies is understandable.

D.  Fea asserts that white evangelicals in supporting Trump are compromising their prophetic witness.  He contrasts them unfavorably with the Civil Rights leaders, who were unafraid to challenge President Lyndon Johnson on the Vietnam War.  Could not one make the case, however, that the conservative evangelicals believe that they are being prophetic?  They are supporting a controversial leader because of his stand on causes that they value and deem to be righteous, but which are highly controversial.  Yes, they are alienating people from evangelicalism, but they could dismiss that concern by retorting that prophets alienate people.  There is also the question of whether strategy should play at least some role in their approach.  They may feel that their causes have little to gain were they to criticize Trump every time that he is mean.  Perhaps they feel that it is better for them at least to have access to President Trump, so that they can be a positive influence on him.  Fea may say that such an attitude is part of the problem, and he may have a point, but there may be a method to their approach that is well-intentioned.

E.  Fea’s portrayal of white evangelicals was rather one-sided.  Granted, he does acknowledge that there are prominent white evangelicals who oppose Trump.  He briefly and occasionally refers to evangelical work for social justice in the history of the United States.  Still, there is hardly any acknowledgment that white evangelicals who supported Trump may not be racist or xenophobic.  A number very well may be, but there are many who are not.  David Jeremiah had a Spanish-speaking ministry, yet he supported Trump.  The book would have been more thoughtful and well-rounded had Fea explored the tension that some white evangelicals may have felt in supporting Trump.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest.

Dissertation Write-Ups: Circumcised Gentile Christians, Sabbath as Sanctuary, John’s High Christology

This is a Write-Up on things that I have read.  Some of them I finished a while back.  I am writing about them here to preserve a record of my reading.

Dissertations:

For a while, I was reading dissertations, as a way to guide me in my own dissertation (i.e., on how to organize and articulate an argument).  Here are the ones that I read, along with my (hopefully accurate) summary:

A. “A Seal of Faith: Rereading Paul on Circumcision, Torah, and the Gentiles,” by Asha Moorthy (Columbia University, 2014).

Moorthy argues that Paul believed that Gentile Christians should be circumcised.  As Moorthy notes, this is an unconventional thesis, as many scholars debate about whether Paul thought that Jewish Christians should be circumcised, while assuming that he regarded Gentiles as exempt from circumcision.  According to Moorthy, Paul in Romans 4:11-12 depicts circumcision as a seal of Abraham’s faith and as a means by which Abraham became a spiritual father: of Jews, who were circumcised on the eighth day, and of Gentile Christians, who were circumcised later in life, as Abraham was.  Moorthy states that this may accord with what some Jews may have believed in Paul’s day, as they read Isaiah 52:1, Ezekiel 44:9, and the universalist passages near the end of Isaiah together to suggest that Gentiles would become circumcised in worshiping at God’s Temple.  Why, then, does Paul appear to be anti-circumcision?  Moorthy argues that Paul did not believe that people were justified and entered the people of God through circumcision, but rather through faith.  Faith and the life of faith were what Paul prioritized.  Paul contended against Jews who maintained that Gentiles needed to be circumcised to enter the people of God and become saved.  Some of these Jews promoted a more extreme version of circumcision than Paul recommended, periah, which removed all of the foreskin.  By contrast, Paul thought that Gentiles entered the people of God by faith and could become circumcised at a later point; this accorded with one of the Jewish perspectives on conversion that was out there.  Moorthy also speculates that Paul in Galatians was not criticizing Jewish festivals but rather those who mixed circumcision with astrology in an attempt to control the divine.  Moorthy offers her interpretations of New Testament passages that have been suggested to go against her thesis.  She also refers to interesting interpretations, such as one that states that Romans 1 is not about the sins of Gentiles but of all people, Jews and Gentiles, and another that holds that Paul regarded the Gentiles as descendants of the lost ten tribes of Israel.  That latter one may be one way to attempt to make sense of Paul’s interpretation of Hosea 1:9 in Romans 9:26, as Paul applies to Gentiles a passage that was originally about the Northern Israelites becoming God’s people.

B.  “Heavenly Sabbath, Heavenly Sanctuary: The Transformation of Priestly Sacred Space and Sacred Time in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” by Jared C. Calaway (Columbia University, 2010).  See here to purchase the book that is based on the dissertation.

According to Calaway, scholars have recognized some relationship between sacred space and sacred time in parts of the Hebrew Bible, but they have fallen short of explaining what that relationship is.  For example, many scholars note parallels between P’s creation account and P’s story about the construction and completion of the Tabernacle.  In certain passages in H and the Book of Ezekiel, revering God’s Sabbath and sanctuary are conjoined.  Calaway argues that the Sabbath became a sort of sanctuary in time for the Jews in exile, since they were away from the physical sanctuary.  P, H, and Ezekiel reflect this.  They also reflect a theme in the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish of a god creating the cosmos and resting in a temple afterwards.  The association of sacred time with sacred space continues into the Second Temple period.  The “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” a document that was at Qumran, encourages Jews to worship God on the Sabbath along with the angels in heaven; this continues a theme that is found in Jubilees, where angels celebrate the Sabbath.  Such a theme would have resonated with people in the Qumran community, who were away from the Temple of Jerusalem because they thought that it was corrupt.  While they were away from the Jerusalem Temple, they could worship with the angels every Sabbath.  The New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews depicts Christians as having access to the heavenly sanctuary and uses Sabbath imagery to describe their spiritual and eschatological rest.  Calaway agrees with the scholarly view that Hebrews was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., one reason being that Hebrews implies that its audience has become fatigued in waiting for Jesus’ return.  Consequently, Calaway argues that its perspective on sacred space and sacred time spoke to the time after the Jews had lost their Temple.  There were a couple of interesting interpretations that stood out to me in this dissertation.  First, Calaway said that Gentiles in Isaiah 56 can become part of God’s elect through Sabbath observance.  Second, Hebrews 1:2 has been interpreted to mean that God created the cosmos through the Son, but Calaway questions that interpretation.  Literally, the passage states that God made the ages (aionas) through the Son.  According to Calaway, that refers to Jesus inaugurating ages—-an age of access to the heavenly sanctuary, the age to come, and the end of the age.  This stood out to me on account of a discussion I had a while back with a Unitarian who denied Jesus’ pre-existence as a being.

C.  “John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology,” by James Frank McGrath (Dunham University, 1998).  See here for the book that is based on the dissertation.

I did not go through this dissertation a second time before writing this summary, as I did with the others, so please pardon any mistakes on my part!  McGrath seeks to account for the high Christology in the Gospel of John, and he believes that it may have been a response to, or emphasized in response to, post-70 Judaism’s conflict with Christians.  The Gospel of John goes beyond treating Jesus as an embodiment or possessor of wisdom, which is in the synoptics, treating him instead as the incarnation of the Logos, a pre-existent being.  Jesus is the only one who has descended from heaven with revelation, as the Gospel of John repudiates any notion that Moses or Elijah ascended to heaven (John 3:13), as did some Jews.  At the same time, McGrath does not seem to interpret Jesus’ “I AM” statements in John’s Gospel as Jesus’ proclamation to be God, but rather as Jesus taking on himself the name of God and representing God, as an angel does in the Apocalypse of Abraham (see 10:8; 17:13).  What the Johannine Christians were saying about Jesus had some precedents within first century Judaism, but the controversy concerned whether such concepts should specifically be applied to Jesus; Jewish opponents of Christianity said “no.”  An interpretation that stood out to me in this dissertation concerns John 1:51, which echoes Genesis 28.  Jacob (later named Israel) in Genesis 28 saw a ladder where angels ascended and descended.  In John 1:51, Jesus tells Nathaniel, whom he calls a true Israelite, that he will see angels ascending and descending on (or, according to McGrath, by) the Son of Man.  According to McGrath, the point there is that Jesus is one who reveals.

I have a few other books to summarize, but I will save that for later this week, probably Thursday.  Tomorrow, I will write about a totally different book.

Church Write-Up: Atonement and Paraclete, Logos and Meaninglessness

Here are some items for my Church Write-Up about last Sunday’s services.  I attended the LCMS church and what I call the “Word of Faith” church.

A.  The atonement came up in both services.  The pastor of the LCMS church was upholding the doctrine of penal substitution.  He portrayed Jesus as practically twisting God the Father’s arm to forgive us, since Jesus paid for our sins, and it would be unjust for God the Father to punish sins twice.  I do not know how seriously the pastor takes this image: does the image reflect what God the Father is truly like, namely, an angry God who needs to be appeased, or is the image primarily designed to assure us that we are forgiven?

The LCMS pastor also commented on the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is called the Paraclete in John 14-15.  According to the pastor, this etymologically relates to how the Holy Spirit is one who is beside us (para), calling to us (kletos).  The pastor also revisited the topic of fellowship.  Last week, he said that fellowship is sharing something with somebody else.  What do we share with God, when we have fellowship with God?  The pastor referred to II Peter 1:4, where Christians are called partakers of the divine nature.  We share with God by having the Holy Spirit.  Another passage that the pastor cited was Romans 8:15, which states that it is by the Spirit of adoption that Christians cry out “Abba Father.”  We are already God’s sons, he said, but the Holy Spirit affirms to our hearts God’s affection towards us, while enabling us to have affection towards God.

I bring up these points about the Holy Spirit because they overlap with what the “Word of Faith” pastor was saying, even though the “Word of Faith” pastor went in a different direction on the atonement.  The title of his sermon, and perhaps even the series, was “Christus Victor.”  Christus Victor is a model of the atonement.  The pastor was critiquing the penal substitution model of the atonement.  He denied that Jesus died on the cross to appease an angry God.  According to the pastor, God is not angry with us.  Rather, God came into the human mess, alongside humans, at the cross, and he triumphed over what humans did to him through the resurrection.  God lovingly comes alongside us today.  The pastor likened God to a judge who convicts a repeat offender, then takes off his judicial robes and spends time in jail with the offender.  He also likened God to a parent who discovers that his or her child is looking at pornography and gently reasons with the child about why pornography is destructive, rather than lashing out at the child in anger.  The atonement is not about Jesus taking away God’s anger, but rather concerns God taking away our anger.  “Hell,” according to the pastor, is where people can freely go when they do not want God’s love.

The “Word of Faith” pastor noted that Isaiah 53:4 states that the Suffering Servant was believed to be stricken by God, but that does not mean that the belief was true.  God was not afflicting the Servant, but people were.  I wonder, though, how the pastor would address v. 10, which states that God desired to crush the Servant and made the Servant sick.

B.  The LCMS pastor preached about Jesus as the Logos.  Greco-Roman philosophy, he said, was searching for some grand logos, some logical order in which everything could fit and have a particular significance or role.  The Epicureans, he stated, held that there was no order and so people should simply pursue pleasure.  The Stoics also thought that there was no order but maintained that people should live as if there is, by being virtuous.  Christianity affirmed that Jesus was the Logos, which means that we know our place and role by looking at Jesus.  We are accepted by Jesus, and that enables us, not to seek the world’s approval, but rather to serve it in love.

I did not entirely agree with these characterizations of Greek philosophy.  My understanding is that the Epicureans included virtue in their conceptualization of pleasure, and that the Stoics believed that there was an order in the cosmos: the cosmos was permeated with a rational fire.  Still, the point about the Stoics not believing in order but acting as if it exists stood out to me, on account of an Unbelievable podcast that I heard the day before: a discussion between Jordan Peterson and Susan Blackmore.  Blackmore, an atheist, was saying that life has no meaning, yet humans can respond to this by going about their day, being active and doing their work.  They make meaning in their lives, she seemed to be saying.  Peterson retorted that she is acting as if there is a God, even though she does not believe in God.

Current Events Write-Up: 6/23/2018

From November 2016 to April 2017, my blog had a weekly “Current Events Write-Up,” in which I would link to news and opinion pieces and comment on them.  I have decided to revive that today.

My method will be a little different from how it was last time.  Most of my links will be from the conservative site Townhall.  I have revived a practice that I have done off-and-on over the past several years: that practice is to read one Townhall column a day.  Yeah, some of their columns have the usual right-wing vitriol and claptrap.  But some of the articles are thoughtful discussions of policy.  Some present refreshingly unconventional perspectives on issues.

While most of the links will probably be from Townhall, I will feel free to link to other resources.  I started subscribing to the Federalist, and I have occasionally listened to its podcasts.  I also follow the blog of a libertarian economist, Daniel Mitchell.

At times, I will feature left-wing voices.  I like how Robert Reich breaks down issues, so he may appear in my Current Events Write-Ups.  I started subscribing to receive weekly updates from Media Matters, which attempts to “fact-check” conservative talking-points.  I doubt that you’ll see much from the Huffington Post here, but never say never.

In terms of where I am politically, that is a good question.  I am annoyed with the Left, yet I still find myself signing Democratic and Move-On petitions to protect the social safety net.  I do not care for the Right’s judgment of the poor, but I think that it has valid critiques of the system and brings important insights to the table.

I should add: I do not entirely and necessarily agree with everything to which I link.

Anyway, here we go!

Townhall: It’s Time for Conservatives to Address Environmental Issues, by Benji Backer

“More importantly, the lack of conservative ideas in environmental politics threatens the planet. It has been difficult to pass meaningful legislation without conservative voices in the mix. The majority of recent environmental laws have consisted of feel-good rhetoric and little substantive action, wasting energy and failing to take account of important sources of clean energy like nuclear power. They punish instead of incentivize, and they disincentivize crucial hands-on conservation practices.”

Townhall: Beware A Monopoly on Pentagon Computing, by Steve Sherman

I like when when conservatives promote competition, and also when they criticize inefficiencies in the military.

Townhall: Eliminate, Don’t Expand, Electric Vehicle Credit, by Veronique de Rugy

According to de Rugy, the Electric Vehicle Credit actually slows down the speed of electric vehicle production, since companies are reluctant to produce above a certain limit because that can result in the elimination of the credit.  It benefits only a few wealthy people who purchase electric vehicles.  And it hurts the environment: “…California’s Zero Emission Vehicle program gives an advantage to companies manufacturing both electric vehicles and traditional vehicles, because they can use the California Air Resources Board credits awarded for producing electric vehicles to offset their dirtier products…”  I am sure that there is another side to this issue, but this article stood out to me.

Townhall: The Supreme Court’s ‘Bartleby’ Decision, by Michael Barone

Barone offers details about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent refusal to challenge partisan gerrymandering, assuming that’s what it was.  Barone seems to defend the decision.  This article has some partisan whining, as it notes that Democrats have supported gerrymandering, too!  Otherwise, it is a thoughtful article.  This part is noteworthy: “The Democrats’ current problem is not just that Republicans controlled districting in more states than Democrats after the 2000 and 2010 Census; it’s also, as the court and the Wisconsin plaintiffs recognized, that Democratic voters are demographically clustered in central cities, sympathetic suburbs and university towns, while Republican voters are more evenly spread around.  A party whose voters are demographically clustered is at a disadvantage in any legislature with equal-population single-member districts. One solution for Democrats is to try to appeal beyond their current redoubts, as President Bill Clinton did in the 1990s.”

The Federalist Radio Hour: What’s Happening With The Border And Immigration Legislation On The Hill

I was not sure what to expect, but I was pleasantly surprised.  The Federalist, of course, is conservative, but the discussion on this episode went beyond the usual conservative talking-points.  A policy analyst, for instance, critiqued President Trump’s emphasis on building the wall.  He said that, unless problems in Central America are addressed, there will be hundreds of thousands of people trying to get into the U.S.  I think that it is important to acknowledge that illegal immigrants are coming to this country for a reason, and often that reason is to escape turmoil in their own countries.  In terms of solutions, the analyst seemed to be proposing that the U.S. help train Central American authorities to contain and suppress the drug cartels.  Whether that would work is a good question.  He sited Iraq as a parallel, but it took a long time for stability to come to that country.

The Federalist Radio Hour: How San Francisco’s Liberal Utopia Invites Homelessness, Drugs, And Crime Into The City

The podcast was actually more thoughtful and educational than the title may indicate.  John Daniel Davidson talks about the rift within the Democratic Party over how to deal with the rampant homelessness in San Francisco.  Davidson also interviews some of the homeless people themselves.  In terms of how government policies worsen the problem, a lot of the problem is bureaucracy hindering the construction of affordable housing.  Another person on the program, Erielle Davidson, wrote an article here.

Triablogue: “I don’t believe in God, but I fear Him greatly.”

Steve Hays links to an interview in which the late Charles Krauthammer describes his perspective on religion.

Richard Falk: The U.S. Withdrawal from the U.S. Human Rights Council

“Explicitly focusing on alleged anti-Israel bias the U.S. withdrew from further participation in the UN Human Rights Council. The only internationally credible basis for criticizing the HRC is its regrettable tendency to put some countries with the worst human rights records in leading roles, creating genuine issues of credibility and hypocrisy. Of course, such a criticism would never be made by the U.S. as it could only embarrass Washington to admit that many of its closest allies in the Middle East, and elsewhere have lamentable human rights records…”

Book Write-Up: Return to Bella Terra, by MaryAnn Diorio

MaryAnn Diorio.  Return to Bella Terra.  TopNotch Press, 2017.  See here to buy the book.

Return to Bella Terra is the third book of MaryAnn Diorio’s “Italian Chronicles.”

I am wondering how to dive into this review, so what I will do first is offer a brief summary of most of the main characters.

Maria: Maria is the main character.  She lives in Brooklyn.  She immigrated to there from Italy.  Hearing that her mother in Italy is sick and that the family land, Bella Terra, may be sold, she returns to Italy.

Nico: Nico is Maria’s adult son.  He was conceived as a result of Maria being raped by a priest, Don Franco.  The result was scandal in Italy for Maria and Nico, who was deemed to be illegitimate.

Don Franco: Don Franco is a priest, but he worked for Maria’s family at Bella Terra.  Don Franco teaches school.  After the rape, he sincerely repented and was transformed by Christ.  He desires a relationship with his son, Nico.

Luca: Luca is Maria’s husband and Nico’s step-father.  Luca feels a call from God to be in Brooklyn, where he believes that he has a mission to preach the Gospel.

Valeria and Anna: They are the daughters of Maria and Luca.  They are happy and fun-loving kids.
Sofia: Sofia is Nico’s newfound love-interest in Italy.

Teresa: Teresa is Sofia’s mother.  Teresa and Maria have a difficult past because they competed for Luca.  Teresa reminds Maria about Maria’s scandal.

Eva: Eva appears to be an old woman, but she is much more than that!

There are other characters, too, but these were the ones who especially stood out to me.

The book had its share of positives.  Its prose is beautiful.  MaryAnn Diorio teaches people how to write, and this book convinces me that she is qualified to do so.  The book has a few theological-philosophical tangents, as Don Franco discusses with his students the question of whether people can transcend themselves and their own perspectives.  The book gets into the characters’ reflections.

I liked the first half of the book more than the second half.  The first half was setting up the story and highlighting the characters’ struggles.  The scene in which Nico goes to Italy and sees the dog he left behind as a child was heartwarming.  The second half of the book tended to dwell on the same issues in the same way over and over.  The struggle was prolonged, but the solution, when it did occur, happened really quickly and, perhaps, superficially.  There was some confusion on my part: Maria wanted to return to Bella Terra to save it and to live there, but her husband does not want to do so.  Meanwhile, Maria does not want Nico to move to Italy and marry Sofia because she fears that she will never see him again.  These problems somewhat overlapped, and they tended to undermine each other: if Maria moves to Italy, and Nico moves to Italy, then they can be with each other.  Of course, Maria was unsure if she would be able to move to Italy, but my point is that these two struggles occurring together was rather awkward.

The book ended beautifully, however, with a reflection on the Kingdom of God and the absence of rifts that will exist there.

I am open to reading the other books of the series.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Bookcrash.  My review is honest.

Current Events: Opposing Views on the Detention Controversy

Here are two perspectives on the current detention controversy.  The first is from the Breitbart site, which defends Trump.  The second is from Media Matters, which criticizes Trump.  They’re well-organized and easy to read.

Breitbart: 13 Facts the Media ‘Pros’ Don’t Want You to Know About ‘Family Border Separation’

Media Matters for America: Myths and facts: Trump’s separation of families and detention of children at the U.S.-Mexico border

Church Write-Up: Humility, Good Heart, Fellowship, Chesed in the Book of Ruth

Here is my Church Write-Up for this week.  I could probably go into more detail, but it is late.

A.  We had a guest preacher at the LCMS church, since our pastor is in Greece.  The preacher’s message was that law does not change people, but knowledge of Christ’s acceptance of us can.  He told a story about when he was a kid, and he and his brother were rough-housing.  They flattened a trashcan, and their mother said, “Wait until your father gets home.”  The father came home, looked at the trashcan, and said, “I’ve done worse.”  The preacher was impressed by his father’s humility, and that stayed with him throughout his life.

A passage that stood out to me in the course of the sermon was Luke 8:15.  This occurs within the Parable of the Sower, and Jesus likens the good ground, where the seed produces fruit, to those who have an honest and good heart.  Honest and good heart?  But are we not all sinners?  The preacher said that meant a heart that is receptive to the Gospel.  I thought of Calvinism: the concept that God makes people’s hearts good, and that is what makes them receptive to the Gospel.

B.  The preacher taught the I John class.  He covered quite a bit of topics.  How the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel honor and exalt one another, and place one another ahead of themselves.  God did not create out of loneliness but out of an outflowing of God’s love.  How the Lutheran Scripture readings often do not match each other in theme, to the preacher’s frustration.  The presence of conservative Wahabi Muslims in chaplaincies.  How the Prodigal Son did not need to repent to be accepted by God.  M. Scott Peck’s analysis of evil in People of the Lie, and how he argued that evil people justify themselves, blame others, and claim God for their back-up.

The preacher also talked about fellowship, since I John 1:7 affirms that, if we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another.  What is fellowship?  Cookies and coffee?  The preacher defined fellowship in terms of what believers have in common: a life of faith and the Holy Spirit.
I somewhat like a non-social definition of fellowship, as one who struggles to socialize.  I remember a conversation I had with a Catholic.  He said that people at his church may not know each others’ names, but they believe the same thing.  That is what they share.

Looking at the occurrences of koinonia in the New Testament, it seems that the term does sometimes refer to mutual participation, sharing, or having something in common.  But there are also times in which a relational implication appears to be present.  Fellowship with God, for example.  Can that be something other than a relationship with God?

C.  At the “Word of Faith” church, the pastor started a series on Ruth.  Some points that he made:
—-God was faithful to Naomi, even though she was complaining that God dealt bitterly with her (Ruth 1:20).

—-Boaz most likely was not a strapping young man but already had a family of his own.  Still, he assumed the role and responsibility of kinsman redeemer and married Ruth to raise up offspring for his departed relative.

—-Boaz showed Ruth love, even though he lived in a city, Bethlehem, that was wicked.  The pastor referred to the events of Judges 19 to support that.  There, residents of Bethlehem behave like the people of Sodom in Genesis 19, trying to gang-rape guests.

—-David years later would praise God, perhaps because God enabled Ruth to marry Boaz, which enabled David to be born and to play a role in God’s plan.

—-The Book of Judges concludes by saying that there was no king in Israel, so the Israelites each did what was right in his own eyes.  The pastor said that this describes many in the West to a T.  But the Israelites needed a king, and we need a king: King Jesus.

Book Write-Up: Balthasar on the Spiritual Senses, by Mark McInroy

Mark McInroy.  Balthasar on the Spiritual Senses: Perceiving Splendour.  Oxford University Press, 2014.  See here to purchase the book.

Mark McInroy teaches Systematic Theology at the University of St. Thomas.  Hans Urs von Balthasar was a renowned twentieth century Catholic theologian.  This book, Balthasar on the Spiritual Senses, examines Balthasar’s conceptualization of the spiritual senses and engagement with Christian theological thought on the topic.  According to McInroy, the spiritual senses are significant in Balthasar’s thought, but their role in Balthasar’s thought has been underappreciated within scholarship.  The reason is that Balthasar himself supposedly stressed the object of theology rather than the subject’s perception of the divine.

McInroy demonstrates that Balthasar departs from the view that the spiritual senses are a mystical, internal perception of the transcendent God that believers can obtain through contemplation and spiritual discipline.  Balthasar also rejects Christian views that have radically differentiated between the spiritual senses and the corporeal senses.  Such views have either seen the spiritual senses as a repudiation of the corporeal senses (i.e., the sensual world), or they have attempted to explain the spiritual senses through a metaphorical treatment of the corporeal senses: for example, believers can metaphorically, but not literally, “taste” God.

Essentially, McInroy argues that Balthasar has a very this-worldly view of the spiritual senses.  The spiritual senses are not a mystical perception of the transcendent God, but rather they are a perception of God’s activity within this world, which God graciously imparts to all believers, not only the spiritual superstars.  They include seeing the spiritual significance, or form, of the elements of God’s creation, in their beauty.  The spiritual senses partake of the corporeal senses, as believers see things as they are, both physically and in terms of their spiritual significance.  The spiritual senses are also activated within the Christian love for neighbor, and the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ and Christian liturgy are key elements of Balthasar’s conception of the spiritual senses.

McInroy situates Balthasar’s conception of the spiritual senses within Christian thought, while examining Balthasar’s engagement of other Christian views.  McInroy concludes that Balthasar reads his own views into Origen, even as Balthasar departs from Origen.  Balthasar overlaps with Christian thinkers, such as Barth, who stress the role of interpersonal relationships in making people truly human and who posit more of a unity between the soul and the body than a division between them.  (Incidentally, McInroy highlights cases in which Barth appears to depart somewhat, or at least to qualify, Barth’s classic aversion to natural theology.)  Balthasar also was critical of philosophical arguments for the existence of God, believing that they marginalize a life of trusting faith.  McInroy has a chapter on Balthasar’s engagement of patristic thought, including that of Origen, Evagrius of Pontus, Diadochus of Photice, Pseudo-Macarius, Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and Pseudo-Dionysius.  His chapter on medieval and early modern thought includes Bonaventure and Ignatius of Loyola.  The chapter about Balthasar’s contemporary theological interlocutors examines Karl Barth, Romano Guardini, Gustav Siewerth, and Paul Claudel.

McInroy contends that Balthasar’s view of the spiritual senses may help to address a division within Catholic thought on the role of divine revelation within the Christian life.  One line of thought, exemplified by Vatican I and its aftermath, emphasizes authority: believers embrace the authority of divine revelation, whether that resonates with them or not.  According to such a view, the authority of divine revelation has been attested by miracles.  The weakness of this view, according to McInroy, is that it draws a wedge between divine revelation and human beings, when divine revelation meets human needs and plays a role in their healing.  Its stress on miracles as signs also tends to marginalize the spiritual richness of the revelation itself.

The other extreme, which McInroy calls “Modernist,” tends to locate divine revelation in the thoughts and feelings of the human subject: one sees God by looking within.  The weakness of this view, according to McInroy, is that it obviates the ability of divine revelation to challenge us, and it marginalizes divine revelation’s role and status as something that is above and beyond us.

For McInroy, Balthasar’s view of the spiritual senses can help to resolve this tension in that it balances the objective with the subjective.  The world is out there, and what is in the world has spiritual significance.  Yet, people need spiritual senses in order to perceive, to appreciate, and even to be transformed by that.

Here are some of my thoughts about the book:

A.  McInroy’s description of Christian views of the spiritual senses is a necessary part of the book, as the book is an academic treatment of Balthasar’s interaction with Christian views.  The book really came alive for me, however, when McInroy described Balthasar’s own conception of the spiritual senses.

B.  While McInroy’s description of Balthasar’s own conception of the spiritual senses is compelling, it was not overly specific about what it practically looks like, how it plays out on a practical level.  What exactly do believers see when they perceive the divine significance of what is in the world?  How do believers spiritually see when they love their neighbors?  Of course, such a discussion would depend on how specific Balthasar himself was about this.

C.  McInroy’s discussion of the polarity in Catholic theology was interesting and resonated with me.  On the one hand, I struggle with the “authority” model, as I feel that it tries to pressure me to be something that I am not and to accept what seems to violate my intellectual or moral sensitivities.  I speak here about what some may conceptualize as commands of the Bible, or aspects of the Bible that violate many people’s intellectual or moral qualms.  The Bible can become a straitjacket as I attempt to apply it, or I can find myself concluding that its requirements and claims are unrealistic in terms of where and how I am, or where and how the world is.  On the other hand, as McInroy points out, the other extreme has its flaws.  I think of a line from Rich Mullins’ song “Creed”: “I didn’t make it, but it is making me.”  Tim Keller and others have asserted that a relationship with a real God means that this God will contradict us, as real beings, outside of our imagination, do.

Whether Balthasar presents a resolution to this dilemma is an open question.  Part of the issue is the question of whether Christianity meets our desires and needs as human beings.  There is also the factor of God’s transforming our wills and our desires by grace.  Christians and others have testified that God can do this.  Some may look at their own lives, however, and wonder if God is doing that for them, or ever will.

I checked this book out from the library.  My review is honest.

Book Write-Up: Falling for You, by Becky Wade

Becky Wade.  Falling for You: A Bradford Sisters Romance.  Bethany House, 2018.  See here to purchase the book.

Falling for You is the second book of the “Bradford Sisters Romance.”  There are three Bradford sisters.  The first is Nora, who was the subject of the first book of the series, True to You.  The second is Willow, who is the subject of Falling for You, the second book of the series.  Amazon says that these are the only two books of the series, but I wonder if a third book will be written about the half-sister, Britt, since aspects of her romantic life were left unresolved in Falling for You.

Willow was a famous model, but she is now living a quiet life in her hometown, tending the family bed-and-breakfast.  She is dealing with issues.  First, there was the break-up with her boyfriend, Corbin, who had been an NFL quarterback.  Second, her mother left her family when Willow was young.  Third, Willow is a Christian who tries to be perfect and feels guilt over a mistake that she made.

Corbin Stewart is a happy-go-lucky fellow, though he was devastated after breaking up with Willow.  He has become a Christian since then.  He takes care of his father, Joe, a crusty man with manic depression.  Corbin has a teenage niece, fun-loving Charlotte.  Charlotte is wondering something.  Decades before, Charlotte’s great aunt, Josephine, went missing.  Charlotte wonders where she went, since that has left a hole in the life of her grandmother, Josephine’s sister.  Charlotte admires Willow, who has publicly promoted a charity that helps kids, and she would like to ask Willow to help her find Josephine.  Willow takes a liking to Charlotte but is initially reluctant to help her because she does not want to get involved again with Corbin, due to their bad break-up.  At the urging of her two sisters, Willow agrees to help.

There are two mysteries that the author strings out.  The first mystery is why exactly Corbin and Willow broke up.  We learn the details of that in the first half of the book.  Another mystery is what happened to Josephine.  That gets answered much later.  The sense of mystery in the book made it a page-turner.

The characters are likeable.  Willow is famous, yet humble and level-headed.  Corbin is a good man; he can be corny, but he had some funny lines.  He sincerely loves Willow and seeks to protect her when she is in danger.  Willow’s grandmother is a cranky Christian, complaining about the world.  Corbin’s father Joe is crusty.  Corbin tries to persuade Joe to become a Christian, with little success through much of the book, until Joe finally becomes a Christian for his own crusty reasons.

There were notable scenes that I enjoyed.  Corbin’s reflections about how his Dad lovingly put him over his shoulder when he was a kid and called him a sack of potatoes was one.  The time when Willow’s sisters encouraged Willow to help find Josephine was another.  Corbin’s internal annoyance at Willow’s family at a party was rather humorous.  Widow thoughtfully reflects about the positives and negatives of modeling, wondering if God wants to embark her on a new path.

The book had quite a bit of reflection.  That added to the book, giving it some depth.  There is reflection about spiritual topics, psychological topics, and even characters; the kindly-appearing Senator with eyes of steel comes to mind in terms of the reflection on characters.  The book strikes a decent balance among the reflections on healing, the intense moments, the romance, and the mysteries.  It does not dwell on anything so much that it becomes boring, but it also does not present too many events going on, confusing the reader.

The author won a Christy Award for another book that she wrote.  That is not surprising.  She is able to craft a book that has charming characters, yet characters who have problems.  I am interested in reading more of Becky Wade’s books in the future.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest.

Church Write-Up: Mistakes and New Beginnings, Intro to I John, Greed

Here is my Church Write-Up on last Sunday’s church activities.

A.  At the LCMS church, the children’s pastor told the kids that, even though they may get in trouble at home, their parents continue to feed them.  He said that God is the same way.  This fit the theme of the service, which was the Fall of Adam and Eve.  Adam and Eve sinned, yet God still loved them and continued to provide for them.

The pastor’s sermon continued in that vein.  His academic and vocational experience was used as an illustration throughout the sermon.  The pastor shared that he has always loved learning, and, in the late 1970’s, he decided to get a master’s in history at the University of Michigan because he felt that he did not know much about history.  He wanted to go on and pursue a Ph.D. at the University of Michigan, but applicants were required to have a B+ in all of their classes to be accepted.  Unfortunately, he received a B in the seminar.  He said that he initially blamed everyone but himself for that.  He was upset with the professor and blamed his low grade on a feud that the professor had with a professor that he liked.  He was even upset with God, wondering why God would let him be accepted into the master’s program over a thousand applicants, only for him to be blocked from getting a Ph.D.  He reflected that what he should have done was set aside his pride and meet with professors, asking them what the requirements for seminars are.  Instead, he was proud.  He had graduated summa cum laude from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and he expected the professors at the University of Michigan to be enamored with his awesomeness.  Well, he graduated from the University of Michigan with his master’s in hand.  He was living with his grandfather at the time, and the two of them were a pair.  The pastor was wondering what to do with his life, and his grandfather was trying to move on after the death of his wife.  Eventually, the pastor accepted that he should go to seminary.

Similarly, Adam and Eve made a mistake.  They were proud and wanted to be like God, knowing what God knows, so they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  They blamed everyone but themselves: Adam even blamed God for giving him the woman.  Adam and Eve would experience difficult times, including the reality of death, but God gave them reason for hope.  Their ending was to be a new beginning.

B.  The pastor started a Sunday school series on I John.  From the monthly newsletter, it looks like it will last for eight weeks.  He will be in Greece and Germany for the next two weeks, so another pastor will teach the class during that time, but then the pastor will return and resume the class.
I had attended the weekly Bible study, which meets on Wednesdays.  (It is taking a break until the end of August.)  The pastor spent a few sessions on I John, so I was afraid that the Sunday School class would cover the same ground as those sessions.  Well, it did, but there were also new things that I learned.

The pastor said that John may have been a teenager when he met Jesus, for rabbis gathered students who were that age.  The pastor also referred to a tradition relayed by Jerome that John died sixty-eight years after Jesus’ passion.

The pastor said that Paul gathered elders, who were pastors-in-training, at Ephesus.  Paul trained them to be pastors.  They would pastor in Asia Minor and train others to be pastors, so the church spread.  This was how Polycarp was believed to have been taught by John.  The church grew, and the older method of leadership was no longer feasible, so hierarchies in the church developed in the second century.

The pastor mentioned the view that different Johns wrote the Gospel of John, I-III John, and the Book of Revelation.  He, however, believes that the apostle John wrote all of them.  He referred to the view that John wrote on the island of Patmos, when he was in exile, for he was unable to be with the church at Ephesus and to communicate with it directly.  John was concerned about the heresies that were becoming popular there, and elsewhere among the churches in Asia Minor. The pastor also referred to the view that John’s Gospel was written in Jerusalem between 40 and 60 C.E., as it reflects the hostility between the Christians and the Jewish Temple community.

The pastor said that there are different ideas about the sequence in which John wrote, and he discussed the possible ramifications of each position.  If John wrote I-III John first, then the Gospel of John fleshes that out.  If John wrote the Gospel of John first, then I John presupposes what is in the Gospel, especially John 1.  If Revelation was written first, then the victory of the good guys is presupposed and what is in I John is icing on the cake.  If Revelation was written last, then it was John’s last will and testament.  The pastor also referred to the possibility that Revelation was written after the Domitian persecution, as a reflection on it.  That would be different from saying that it was written in the heat of the persecution to comfort the Christians that God would soon end their suffering.  Such a view might also fit the LCMS’s amillennialism, as it envisions Revelation as a panoramic perspective on the suffering of Christians and how that fits into God’s larger agenda.

John pastored at Ephesus.  There was a legend that Ephesus was founded by Epos, the Queen of the Amazon women.  The cult of Diana/Artemis was strong there.  The pastor referred to a dissertation by Arnie Voight that argues that Paul in Ephesians 5 encouraged wives to submit to their husbands on account of the Amazon legend: there was a belief in Ephesus that women were superior to men because they were lifegivers and lifebearers, and Paul sought to balance that out.  Incidentally, Arnie Voight has a website in which he addresses questions about the Bible and gender.

John was arguing against Docetism, the idea that Jesus only appeared human but actually was not so.  The pastor said that the implication of John’s insistence that Jesus became flesh is that Christians can have complete joy here and now (I John 1:4), for God meets them in the here and now, in real places, in flesh and blood.  They do not have to go to heaven before they can experience that joy.

The pastor likened the belief that Jesus’ human nature died while his divine nature did not to Docetism.

Anyway, I realize that there have been scholars who would question some of this.  They would question whether there were rabbis in Jesus’ day, or argue that the hostility between Christians and non-Christian Jews in the Gospel of John reflects a post-70 reality rather rather than a pre-70 one.

The Arnie Voight dissertation reminds me of Elizabeth McCabe’s argument that what I Timothy 2:11-14 says about women is a polemic against the Isis cult.  This is not to suggest that the two agree on everything when it comes to the Bible and gender, but they agree that paganism is part of the equation of what the New Testament says about women.

The pastor’s discussion about the sequence in which John wrote (assuming John wrote the Gospel, the epistles, and Revelation) reminded me of Lee Harmon’s books on Revelation and the Gospel of John.  Harmon presents John as the author of both, but he thinks that the Gospel of John shows John embracing a spiritual, realized eschatology, after the failure of the literalist eschatology that appears in the Book of Revelation.  The pastor, of course, would not embrace this, but the discussion about sequence reminded me of that.

C.  At the “Word of Faith” church, the pastor concluded his series on giving.  The text of the sermon was Luke 12:13-21.  A man asks Jesus to order his brother to divide his inheritance with him.  Jesus declines to do so and warns against greed and covetousness.  Jesus then tells a parable about a rich fool.  A rich man has an abundant year and decides to kick back and relax.  God takes the man’s soul because the man was not rich towards God.  God asks to whom the man’s wealth will now belong.

The pastor made a variety of points.  He defined covetousness as wanting more than we need, and assuming that getting more things will make us happy.  That attitude does not make us happy.  Things do not satisfy, and greed can lead to strife: it led to the division between the man and his brother, and the rich man’s sons undoubtedly fought for their father’s wealth.  Greed is also an unrealistic perspective.  The ground produced the crops, yet the rich man took credit for it.  God responded by taking the man’s soul, which belonged to God and not the man.  Rather than looking to things to make us happy, which amplifies loneliness, why not give to what God is doing?  The pastor referred to three new church plants that did not exist before, thanks to the contributions of the church.  He disputed the idea that “you can’t take it with you,” for you can take it with you: when you give, that has eternal consequences.  The pastor was clear that how much we give is between us and God.

The pastor referred to celebrities who committed suicide in arguing that wealth does not satisfy.  Some readers may get the impression that the pastor was shamelessly exploiting their deaths to raise money.  I myself question whether all of those celebrities were materialistic.  Robin Williams was in AA and likely tried to be on a spiritual path, but he suffered from clinical depression.  The pastor’s picture of people coming together rather than fighting out of greed struck me as a bit unrealistic, perhaps because of my own struggles to like a lot of people, and my resistance to the idea of someone else gaining at my expense.  Still, the pastor made a good point: rather than looking to things to make one happy, why not invest the money in something that can do good?

Book Write-Up: Ecologies of Faith in a Digital Age

Stephen D. Lowe and Mary E. Lowe.  Ecologies of Faith in a Digital Age: Spiritual Growth through Online Education.  IVP Academic, 2018.  See here to purchase the book.

The Lowes both work at Liberty University.  Stephen is graduate chair of doctoral programs and teaches Christian education.  Mary also teaches and is associate dean for online programs.

The essential argument of this book is that Christians online can create a nurturing environment for each other, one that encourages believers, fosters sanctification, and fulfills the “one another” commands in the New Testament.

Here are some thoughts about this book:

A.  The book effectively argues that Christians can find community online.  And why not?  I fail to understand the view that people can only know each other and be authentic friends in person.  Online relationships can actually be deeper than relationships in person, since people may find that they can share more information about themselves, their thoughts, and their feelings online.

B.  The book made an interesting point about how students’ online comments were stylistically and substantially better than the papers that they wrote.

C.  The book made a lot of the usual arguments about the importance of Christian community: you cannot grow alone, the New Testament was directed to groups, there are many “one another” commands in Scripture, you need to love others.  The book illustrated this eloquently with beautiful imagery, as when it talked about no one in the ecosystem thriving alone but needing nutrients from others in the ecosystem.  Broken relationships can hinder that, the book argued, which is why reconciliation is important.  The book provided examples of how mutual edification can take place, both online and offline.  People can pray for each other.  They can work together on service projects.  They can worship with each other.  Plus, holiness is contagious.  Being around other Christians can encourage one to practice holiness, to love and to serve.

D.  My struggle with the book is that it tended to present a rosy picture of Christian community, both online and offline.  Online communities can be cliquish, and people online can be nasty to each other.  Resentments and unfriending can easily arrive, and remain.  Indeed, lots of relationships can be fostered online, but many can be destroyed.  Then there is the reality that not everybody is good at making friends online, coming up with things to say that can generate a lot of likes.  To its credit, this book addressed some of this.  It occasionally acknowledged the negative experiences that people have online.  It pointed to the Corinthian community in the New Testament as an example of a dysfunctional community.  It stated that even those on the social margins online can benefit, as they have online networks that can assist them in finding employment.  The book was also compassionate towards those who struggle to be articulate in offline, traditional classrooms, showing how some of them thrive in online settings.  Still, the book could have been less rosy, acknowledging more the negative aspects of online communities, and perhaps offering suggestions as to how Christians can navigate their way through those.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest.

Movie Write-Up (Loosely-Speaking): Solo

We went to see Solo during the Memorial Day Weekend.  My custom has been to write about all of the Star Wars movies that I see in the theater.  I’ve been stalling on this one.  For the others, there were profound elements that I felt I could blog about.  For Solo, there is nothing like that.  And yet, Solo was my favorite of the newly-released Star Wars movies.  I mean, above The Force Awakens, Rogue One, and The Last Jedi.

What did I like about Solo?  That’s a good question.  The plot was fairly easy to follow.  Rogue One, I thought, was more convoluted.  The characters in Solo were better.  I found them more likable.  The Han character: well, I cannot say that he was totally like Harrison Ford, but he was cool and confident, in his own way.  His girlfriend Qi’ra: she was physically attractive, certainly, but she was also a power-broker, carrying herself with authority wherever she went.  Lando: a cheat, yet a charming cheat.  But he loved his robot, who crusaded for robot rights. He probably did not love her in a romantic sense, as she thought, but he cared for her.  It was funny when Lando narrated the Carlissian Chronicles, and when he flew the Millennium Falcon away when Han was in trouble (poor Han)!  The Woody Harrelson character: mistrustful, yet he loved someone on his team.  Then there was another character on his team who loved to be alone and unattached, or so he thought.

Then there were the cool scenes.  Some spoilers here.  We learn how Han gets the name “Solo.”  That scene was pretty intense, as he was trying to escape Imperial detection.  Han is thrown into a pit with a hungry monster, and the monster turns out to be….Aaaarrhlll!  Is that how you spell the sounds he makes?  Lando says that he hopes he will never see Han again, and Han takes that in stride.  Han at the end is about to work for a gangster on Tatooine, who the Woody Harrelson character was about to work for.  The criminal powerhouse who was ultimately in charge of Qi’ra and her husband turned out to be…Darth Maul!

In the end, Han helps out people we thought were bandits but turned out to be the precursors of the Rebellion.  One of them is the actor who played Wicket in Return of the Jedi!  Han declines to join the Rebellion, preferring instead to smuggle.  I wondered if this Han was a bit more idealistic than the crusty Harrison Ford one.  Or maybe Han’s natural character is to look out for number one, and yet to end up doing the right thing, every now and then.

There were a lot of kids watching the movie.  Is it good for them to watch a movie in which the hero is a thief and a smuggler?  I don’t want to be prudish here, but it’s something I wonder.

Anyway, I’ll leave the comments open, but snarky comments about my post will not be published.

Church Write-Up: Sabbath, Hope and Forgiveness, John 6

Here is my Church Write-Up about the church events that I attended last Sunday.

A.  The theme at the LCMS service was the Sabbath.  The youth pastor talked about the importance of recharging our batteries.  What was most interesting about his talk, however, were his comments about whether God rests on the Sabbath.  On the one hand, he said that God rests when we rest.  On the other hand, he said that God is always at work, so we can talk to God when we rest, and God will work on us or in whatever situation we bring to God.

I thought of John 5:17, in which Jesus tells the Jewish leaders that the Father works and he works.  This was on the Sabbath, and Jesus said that in justifying his own Sabbath activity.

Does God rest on the Sabbath?  There are repeated affirmations in the Bible that God rested on the seventh day after creation (Genesis 2:2-3; Exodus 20:11; 31:17).  Exodus 31:17 goes so far as to say that God was refreshed when God rested on the seventh day.

Is John 5:17 saying, though, that God works on the Sabbath?  I checked some commentaries on Logos.  First, I checked the Word Biblical Commentary, by George Beasley-Murray.  Beasley-Murray states the following:

“The statement ‘My Father has been working until now’ must be set in the context of Jewish exposition of the Scriptures. The Jews understood Gen 2:2 as implying that God’s sabbath following creation continues to the present—his works are finished. But that raises a difficulty: how can God be said in the Scriptures to be active, if he keeps sabbath? One answer ran: God rested from work on the world, but not from his work on the godless and the righteous: ‘He works with both of them, and he shows to the latter something of their recompense, and to the former something of their recompense’ (Gen. Rab. 11.8c; see Str-B 2:461–62 for further examples of this thinking). Accordingly God blesses the righteous in anticipation of their gaining the life of the kingdom of God, and brings judgment on sinners in anticipation of their exclusion from it. Here we see the significance of ‘I also am working.’ Jesus as the Son of God does the works of God, even on the sabbath. The signs just narrated indicate that he brings to men no mere anticipation of the saving sovereignty of God but its reality—life from the dead; and he declares judgment on rejectors of the word of God which the Last Judgment will confirm.”

According to Beasley-Murray, Jewish tradition held that God has continually rested after creation, in the sense that God is not creating anything new.  Still, God works by blessing the righteous and judging the wicked as a foretaste of the coming Kingdom.  Jesus’ works on the Sabbath, too, gave a foretaste of the Kingdom and related to judgment.

John MacArthur states the following:

“Jesus’ point is that whether he broke the Sabbath or not, God was working continuously and, since Jesus Himself worked continuously, He also must be God. Furthermore, God does not need a day of rest for He never wearies (Is. 40:28). For Jesus’ self-defense to be valid, the same factors that apply to God must also apply to Him. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8)! Interestingly, even the rabbis admitted that God’s work had not ceased after the Sabbath because He sustains the universe.”

That part about God not needing to keep the Sabbath because God does not weary stood out to me.  I recall reading Michael Fishbane’s Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, and Fishbane argued that Second Isaiah actually polemicizes against P: P says that God rested on the Sabbath, whereas Second Isaiah states that God never wearied.  P says “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26), whereas God in Isaiah 44:24 affirms that God alone created the earth.  But what entered my mind in reading MacArthur’s comment was a Christological issue: Is the implication that Jesus did not get tired?  But would not Jesus, as a human being, get tired?  John 4:6 states that Jesus was tired from a journey.  Perhaps one could respond that Jesus’ divine nature does not tire, but his human nature does.

I am sure that there are more commentaries I can check out, but I’ll move on to the next item.

B.  The pastor’s sermon reaffirmed a point that he has made in more than one sermon: that, when we try to be in control, when we try to be God, we botch things up.  This is the case with the Sabbath.  We work to rest: we exhaust ourselves during the week, so we can have that leisure time during the weekend.  Or the Pharisees tried to control the Sabbath by coming up with lots of regulations, making the Sabbath more of a burden; the pastor referred to the blue laws that have existed in America.  The pastor said that we should start with Sabbath: resting in God.  When we do that, even our work becomes a way to serve God and neighbor.

C.  The Sunday school class on forgiveness in II Corinthians came to an end.  Many points were brought up: how college students these days do not want a roommate; how the suicide rate among teenagers is high, etc.  They may feel bad because they are not affirmed on social media, or because the employment opportunities are not as great now as they were for their parents.  The teacher thought that the themes of forgiveness in II Corinthians could address those problems: the lack of interpersonal skills and skills at conflict resolution, and the dearth of hope among young people.  At the same time, he acknowledged that North American Christianity lacks the love and the hospitality that Christianity had in antiquity.  He referred to his late father’s statement that it will take another Great Depression before North American Christianity gets back on track.  The father remembered his time growing up during the Depression as a time when Christians pulled together and helped others.

I would like to relay how the teacher said that certain elements in II Corinthians 5 relate to forgiveness.  In II Corinthians 5, Paul talks about groaning in his present body and his hope of being absent from the body and present with the Lord.  He said that we walk by faith and not by sight.  Paul affirmed that when Christ died, all died, and now Christians do not judge others by a human point of view.  Paul also stated that Christians are God’s ambassadors of reconciliation.

What does this have to do with forgiveness, according to the teacher?  For one, Paul was affirming a hope that was larger than himself, the Corinthian community, and the problems that were between them.  As the teacher said, we can endure all sorts of suffering if we know that the suffering will come to an end.  Second, the teacher said that, when Paul said that all died, he meant that Christ died for all.  We can see each person as one for whom Christ died.  Calvinists would probably interpret that differently, with their belief in limited atonement.  Third, Paul’s statement that we walk by faith and not by sight relates, not only to the eschatological hope that Christians have, but also to their belief that God is at work in the lives of all.  We can look at the worst stinker, who said something hurtful to us, and believe that he or she is the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, either a brother or sister in Christ or a potential brother or sister in Christ.  (I don’t think that the teacher is a universalist, though he said that he is intrigued by Origen.)  We need God’s forgiveness on our best and our worst days.  The teacher also shared that, after his children were baptized, they were not much different from how they were before, but he walks by faith, not by sight: he believes that the waters of baptism transformed his children.

A lot of this can be unpacked or clarified, but let’s move on to the next item.

D.  The “Word of Faith” church had a guest speaker, since the pastor was away at a prophetic conference.  The guest speaker himself is a pastor, but of a church in another state (Colorado, I think).  The theme recently has been giving.  The speaker’s text was John 6, in which Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fishes.

The main point of the sermon, of course, was that the boy who brought his lunch was blessed to be part of this miracle, and we can be blessed when we give to God.  There were two parts of the sermon that stood out to me, though.

First, John 6:6 says that Jesus was asking his disciples how they could feed the multitude to test them, for Jesus already knew what he was about to do.  The speaker referred to a belief among some Christians that God does not test people, for testing people implies law, whereas Christians are under grace.  The speaker disagreed with this view.  Yet, he said that God does not test people to see if they will pass or fail.  We fail a lot, yet God is still faithful.  Rather, Jesus was testing his disciples to set the stage for something great that he was about to do.

Second, John 6:11 states that, before multiplying the loaves, Jesus gave thanks.  Should we give thanks to God in faith that God will do something?  What if God does not do what we are thanking God in advance for?  The speaker said that we can give thanks that God will handle the situation, even if it is not the way that we want.  That does not entirely sound “Word-of-Faith”-ish.  It sounds more like the prayer of the Lutheran pastor, in which he trusts God with people’s health problems, as God does what God thinks is best.

Anyway, I’ll leave the comments on in case anyone wants to add some insights.

Book Write-Up: Old Testament Theology for Christians

John H. Walton.  Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Beliefs.  IVP Academic, 2017.  See here to purchase the book.

John H. Walton is a scholar of the Hebrew Bible, which he teaches at Wheaton College.

In this review, I will highlight aspects of each chapter that stood out to me.  Occasionally, in doing so, I will comment on broader themes in the book.  Hopefully, this will give you a taste of what the book is like.

Chapter 1: Introduction and Foundations

This chapter includes a provocative quote by Yvonne Sherwood about people’s problems with the Old Testament.  Walton also distinguishes between systematic theology and biblical theology, as well as highlights where his biblical theology overlaps with and differs from other biblical theologies.  For instance, there are other biblical theologies that focus on how different biblical authors within the Hebrew Bible disagree with one another in their theological ideas, but Walton largely avoids that approach.  Source criticism is lacking in this book.  One can get the impression that, as far as Walton is concerned, all of the Old Testament essentially manifests the same theology.  Also lacking in this book is discussion about how themes in the Hebrew Bible fit into stages of Israel’s history, such as exile and restoration.  Historical context still looms large in this book, for Walton situates themes in the Hebrew Bible within the context of ancient Near Eastern worldviews, exploring where they overlap and differ.  As far as I can recall, however, Walton never attempts to provide a historical, naturalistic explanation for how ancient Israelite religion came to differ from the rest of the ancient Near East.  The implication may be that Israel’s distinct theology is due to divine revelation.

While acknowledgement of diversity within the Hebrew Bible is largely absent from this book, the Old Testament is presented as quite distinct from the New Testament.  According to Walton, the Old Testament lacks certain themes that are in the New Testament, such as salvation from sin, a rigorous conception of the afterlife, a divine Messiah, the Trinity, and acknowledgement of a devil.  Yet, Walton posits a connection between the Testaments.  Walton argues that the Old Testament is Christotelic rather than Christocentric.  For Walton, the New Testament develops themes that are in the Old Testament, especially the theme of God dwelling with humanity.

Chapter 2: Yahweh and the Gods

Walton highlights how the God of the Hebrew Bible is similar to and different from the gods of the ancient Neat East.  Walton has done so in other works, but his discussion in this book is clearer and more accessible.  Walton’s picture of the God of the Hebrew Bible is rather stark, in places.  Walton seems to endorse a version of the divine-command theory: something is right or wrong because God says so, not because it is inherently right or wrong.  Later in the book, Walton says that we should worship God because of who God is, whether that benefits us or not.  At the same time, Walton stresses God’s wisdom and desire for order in the Hebrew Bible, so Walton does not depict God as arbitrary.  Another aspect of Walton’s discussion is that Walton questions whether there actually is a divine council, as the Hebrew Bible presents, or if that is God accommodating Godself to the ancient Israelites within their historical context.  Walton appears to downplay the Hebrew Bible’s acknowledgement that there are other gods.

Chapter 3: Cosmos and Humanity

Walton argues that the Hebrew Bible, like the ancient Near East, stresses not material origins but rather function: something exists when it has a function within an orderly cosmos.  For Walton, this is relevant to current debates about the theological ramifications of evolution: creatures and things in the natural world could have received their function within the orderly cosmos as a result of evolution, as God used that as the mechanism.  According to Walton, God in Genesis 1 created an orderly, albeit not necessarily perfect, cosmos, where God would dwell.  God created human beings to increase the order in the world, and their rulership of the world is how they are in God’s image.  Walton distinguishes the biblical God from the Great Symbiosis within the ancient Near East: unlike many ancient Near Eastern gods, God did not create humans to be God’s slaves and to provide God with necessities, such as food.  The Great Symbiosis will recur throughout this book, as it relates to the distinctions between the religion of the Hebrew Bible and other ancient Near Eastern religions on a variety of topics, including divine retribution and the afterlife.  This chapter also provides a discussion of biblical anthropology: what are the ruach (spirit) and the nephesh (soul) within humans?

Chapter 4: Covenant and Kingdom

This chapter includes a paragraph about how God envisioned Abraham’s descendants being a blessing to the nations, drawing from examples in the Hebrew Bible.  Walton talks about the importance of genealogies in I Chronicles and states that the Chronicler’s message is that Israel and her priesthood can still bring order to the world, notwithstanding the absence of a monarchy.  (I guess this would be an exception to what I say above about the relative absence of Israel’s history in this book.)  Walton speculates about how Abraham would have viewed God’s calling of him, in light of ancient Near Eastern religion: Abraham might not have initially seen God as the high god but rather as a lower family god, offering to patronize Abraham and Abraham’s family.  In one of the book’s many excurses, Walton offers an interpretation of God writing God’s law on Israelites’ hearts and minds (Jeremiah 31).  Walton interprets this, not so much as God reprogramming the Israelites to be righteous, but more as God writing on their hearts as a message to others.  Walton brings into this discussion how gods in the ancient Near East were believed to write on entrails in communicating their will.  Throughout this book, Walton’s discussions fell on a spectrum.  Some of his discussions were convincing.  Some of them evoked a reaction of “yes, but…”  Some made me wonder where he was going or what he was getting at.  The discussion on Jeremiah 31:33 evoked more a reaction of, “That’s interesting, but does it work, in terms of explaining Jeremiah 31?”  God reprogramming the Israelites to be righteous would solve a problem that is mentioned in Jeremiah 31—-the Israelites breaking the covenant—-and it overlaps with themes elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible: the circumcision of the heart, the heart of flesh and the new spirit in the Book of Ezekiel, etc.

Chapter 5: Temple and Torah

Walton appears to conflate different perspectives in the Torah, acting as if Deuteronomy has a conception of ritually purifying the land of Israel for God’s presence.  Many scholars, by contrast, would contrast P with Deuteronomy.  Deuteronomy, they would say, largely does not present God as dwelling with the Israelites, but rather depicts God’s name as dwelling there.  This, in my opinion, is one area in which Walton’s failure to acknowledge source criticism or the diversity of Scripture leads him to drop the ball, to ignore themes within the different voices of the Hebrew Bible that make them distinct.

Walton talks about sacrifices and distances them from being about the forgiveness of sin.  He does well to let the Hebrew Bible to be the Hebrew Bible rather than forcing it into a Christian mold.  At the same time, the New Testament seems to relate sacrifice to the forgiveness of sin.  A fuller discussion of how the New Testament reworks the concept of sacrifice may have been helpful, for, in Hebrews, the cleansing of the sanctuary does appear to be applied to forgiveness.  Walton occasionally offers insights on this, though, as when he says that the Old Testament sacrifices were about cleansing the sanctuary in the land of Israel, whereas the New Testament presents Christ’s sacrifice as cleansing God’s new Temple, the church, for God’s habitation.  Walton offers an insightful discussion of the problems of imitatio Dei: how we imitate God, and where that is impossible.  He says that the Sabbath was more about participation in God’s rule than rest.  This evoked a reaction of “Yes, but”: yes, gods affirmed their sovereignty in resting after creation, but the Hebrew Bible still stresses the rest-and-refreshment aspect of the Sabbath (Exodus 23:12; 31:17).

This chapter also discusses the concept of to-evah (abomination) in Leviticus 18, as same-sex sexual activity is called that.  This was one of those discussions where I wondered where Walton was going: sometimes, in reflecting on his discussion, I have clarity, and sometimes not.  Walton argues that the rules in Leviticus 18 were about order and were specifically given within God’s covenant with Israel: we cannot conclude, therefore, at least on the basis of Leviticus 18, that opposition to homosexual sex is part of God’s universal moral law.  I am a bit ambivalent about this argument.  Perhaps God was mandating an order that fit Israel’s ancient context, one that had slavery (which Walton briefly discusses later in the book), privileged heterosexual marriage, and stressed the importance of reproduction.  On the other hand, does not morality fit into God’s conception of order?  At times, Walton seems to suggest that it does, asserting that the Old Testament provides us insights into God’s character.  At other times, Walton appears to question whether we can derive any universal moral principles from the Old Testament.

Chapter 6: Sin and Evil

This chapter includes a helpful discussion of demons in the Hebrew Bible.  Walton argues that the Hebrew Bible does not suggest that non-Israelite gods are demons, arguing on linguistic grounds that the “demons” in such passages refer to gods in the pantheon, not Satan’s minions.  This chapter lucidly argues that the Hebrew Bible lacks the concept of a devil, exploring the serpent of Genesis 3, Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, and the depiction of ha-Satan in the Hebrew Bible.  As far as I can see, Walton failed to engage I Chronicles 21, in which ha-Satan actually instigates David to sin, rather than simply raising righteous concerns about a person’s character, as he does elsewhere (according to Walton).

Chapter 7: Salvation and the Afterlife

Walton argues that salvation in the Hebrew Bible does not relate to forgiveness of sin.  Perhaps, but the Hebrew Bible does seem to stress divine forgiveness of sin a lot.  Walton also argues that the concepts of people going to heaven and hell and a general resurrection of the dead are absent from the Hebrew Bible.  His discussion of passages that have been applied to these concepts was good.  Unfortunately, as far as I can see, he does not engage passages in the Hebrew Bible about people being gathered to their fathers when they die.  Within scholarship, such passages have been considered relevant to the question of whether the Hebrew Bible depicts a rigorous conception of the afterlife.

Conclusions

What was particularly interesting in this chapter was Walton’s discussion of the Holy Spirit.  Walton argues that the Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible was not a personal being but rather God’s power.  That stood out to me, as I was raised in a church (Armstrongism) that taught this.  What is interesting, though, is that Walton argues that New Testament and Christian conceptions of the Holy Spirit—-as a personal being or one who indwells people—-are similar to ancient Near Eastern theological conceptions.  Walton was not clear about where he was going with this, but it was an intriguing observation.

This book is informative and lucid.  Obviously, I have some concerns, but it would make an excellent introduction to the Hebrew Bible for students, as well as a reference book for both scholars and people interested in the Bible.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest.