Posts
Derek Leman was a Messianic rabbi, and I have been subscribing to his Daily D’var for years. Now it is called the “Daily Portion.”
In his August 27, 2016 Daily Portion, Derek addresses Acts 4:12.
Acts 4:12 is a famous passage, in which Peter tells Jewish leaders after
healing a lame man that there is no other name under heaven given among
men by which one can be saved. A number of Christians interpret that
to mean that people who believe in Jesus in this life will go to heaven
after they die, while those who do not believe in Jesus in this life
will go to hell.
Derek offers an alternative interpretation: that the salvation in
Acts 4:12 concerns Israel’s national salvation rather than going to
heaven or hell after death. For Derek, part of the issue is Israel
avoiding a catastrophic collision with Rome. Derek believes that this
interpretation is consistent with the content of Peter’s speech in Acts
3:17-24, and also the meaning of salvation in the Hebrew Bible.
Questions remain in my mind. For example, in the Book of Acts, there
are places in which salvation applies to Gentiles, not just Jews (Acts
11:14; 15:1, 11; 16:30-31). When Paul exhorted the Philippian jailer to
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and he shall be saved, what did that
have to do with national Israel repenting and avoiding collision with
Rome?
Still, Derek raises important points that deserve consideration.
Does salvation in the New Testament relate, in any way, to the
Israel-focused salvation in the Hebrew Bible?
Here are Acts 3 and Acts 4, in case you want to read them before reading Derek’s comments.
Derek’s comments:
NOTES: Johnson says that Acts is developing the theme of Israel’s
true leadership, the apostles as the leaders of the remnant within
Israel that follows Messiah Yeshua. In keeping with this theme, the
Sanhedrin is powerless against the apostles in this story. They cannot
punish them because the people have all seen the signs they performed.
Peter instead preaches to the council! They come up with a weak
judgment, to order them to silence. Peter refuses the order of the
council and still he and John are let go. In every sense, the apostles
thwart the power of the Sanhedrin and have the favor of the people. This
position of the apostles is, of course, temporary, but Luke shows us a
foretaste of the coming age when Israel will be governed by Yeshua and
the apostles will sit on thrones (Luke 22:30). The chapter contains a
number of interesting sayings. Vs. 2 could be translated either in or
through Yeshua, so that they were saying the resurrection of the dead is
in Yeshua or through him. This could mean that the foretaste of the
resurrection has happened in Yeshua, so that Peter can point to the
event of Yeshua’s raising as a sign to help his generation believe. Or
he may mean more: that the only way to know we are included in the
coming resurrection is if we locate ourselves in Yeshua. In vs. 10 he
says the lame beggar was healed “in the name of Yeshua,” indicating that
power to see miracles happens because of Yeshua’s coming and his
authority given to the apostles as his agents. Finally, in vs. 12 he
says salvation can be found in no one else. What is meant here by
“salvation”? Some Christian traditions assume the word always means
inclusion in the blessed afterlife. This is rarely if ever the meaning
in the Bible. In Peter’s time the nation of Israel needs to be saved
from its present course in a collision with Rome in which the people are
headed for major destruction. The nation needs to find its salvation in
the resurrected, ascended Messiah. Calling upon him as a nation would
bring rescue to Israel, what Peter has also called a “time of
refreshing” (Acts 3:20). In other words, the Messianic era can come down
to earth, bringing peace and plenty to everyone. Compare this reading
of Peter’s words with the more common individualistic salvation message:
“if you will personally believe in Yeshua God will not punish you in
the afterlife.” The individualized afterlife message, with its notion
that God is waiting for each person to pass a test, fails to explain the
long history of the word salvation as national deliverance and does not
match well the plural nature of the words Peter has been using (“This
Yeshua is the stone that was zejected by you, the builders”). He is
calling on the collective nation to welcome Yeshua, not just
individuals.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Book Write-Up: An Amish Harvest
An Amish Harvest: Four Novellas. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2016. See here to buy the book.
As the title indicates, this book has four novellas. Each is by a well-known author in the field of Amish fiction. In this review, I will list each novella then offer my thoughts about it.
Beth Wiseman, “Under the Harvest Moon.”
This story deals with domestic violence, for the main character, Naomi, was physically abused by her late husband. The novella’s interaction with this issue is effective. It talks about the fear that Naomi experienced, her rationalizations of the violence, how her husband came across as a decent fellow to others, and the impact of the violence on at least one of her children.
A noteworthy plot device in the story involved Brock, Naomi’s love interest after her husband’s death. Brock was English and was doing chores at Naomi’s place. Unbeknownst to Naomi and her family, Brock has an Amish background and can understand them when they are discussing him as a romantic prospect for Naomi!
The novella also discusses powwowing, which is somewhat like witchcraft. Amish culture largely disapproves of it, yet there are Amish people who secretly consult practitioners. This was new to me.
The romance was rather rushed and a bit underdeveloped, but that may have been due to limitations in space. The story did have some good characters, such as Naomi’s daughter, who was intelligent beyond her years.
Amy Clipston, “Love and Buggy Rides.”
This story intersects, somewhat, with Amy Clipston’s “Amish Heirloom” series, but one can understand this story without having read the series.
This novella is about an accident involving an automobile and an Amish buggy. An Amish young woman develops an attraction towards the driver of the buggy. The story goes into the trouble that the driver was in, in terms of his job.
This story was not my favorite in the book, but it was all right. There was not much in this story that was eventful. Perhaps my reaction is due to my having already read an Amish novel (Kathleen Fuller’s An Unbroken Heart) involving an accident; fortunately, in Clipston’s novella, nobody is killed.
Kathleen Fuller, “A Quiet Love.”
In this novella, there is Amos, who is in his twenties. Amos may be on the autistic spectrum, or he may be developmentally-delayed. He is slow in processing things, and he is rather blunt when he speaks. At the same time, he is very talented at drawing.
Dinah is also in her twenties. She stutters, and she has been a recluse on account of that, even though her mother pressures her to go out, meet people, and get married. She meets Amos because a relative of hers married a relative of his.
A romance develops between Amos and Dinah. Amos thinks that Dinah is beautiful, and he likes that Dinah does not talk down to him or take offense at what he says; he feels comfortable around her, in short. Dinah is drawn to Amos’ innocence. She also notices his insight when she is teaching him to read poetry. And there is the physical attraction.
This is a beautiful story, and it interacts thoughtfully with certain issues, such as the extent to which Amos understands romantic love, and his growth into adult responsibilities after he gets married. It is moving when two “odd ducks” find each other and make a life together. The appropriateness of such a relationship would probably be debated, though.
Vannetta Chapman, “Mischief in the Autumn Air.”
This story is a mystery, which is not surprising, since Vannetta Chapman writes Amish mysteries. A map involving U.S. history is involved. So is an auction.
I read this story in its entirety, but I had difficulty getting into it. It could have used more pathos, which would have allowed me to connect more with the characters. At the same time, the story’s distance did coincide with intelligent insights about God’s work in bringing people together to meet each other’s needs.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
As the title indicates, this book has four novellas. Each is by a well-known author in the field of Amish fiction. In this review, I will list each novella then offer my thoughts about it.
Beth Wiseman, “Under the Harvest Moon.”
This story deals with domestic violence, for the main character, Naomi, was physically abused by her late husband. The novella’s interaction with this issue is effective. It talks about the fear that Naomi experienced, her rationalizations of the violence, how her husband came across as a decent fellow to others, and the impact of the violence on at least one of her children.
A noteworthy plot device in the story involved Brock, Naomi’s love interest after her husband’s death. Brock was English and was doing chores at Naomi’s place. Unbeknownst to Naomi and her family, Brock has an Amish background and can understand them when they are discussing him as a romantic prospect for Naomi!
The novella also discusses powwowing, which is somewhat like witchcraft. Amish culture largely disapproves of it, yet there are Amish people who secretly consult practitioners. This was new to me.
The romance was rather rushed and a bit underdeveloped, but that may have been due to limitations in space. The story did have some good characters, such as Naomi’s daughter, who was intelligent beyond her years.
Amy Clipston, “Love and Buggy Rides.”
This story intersects, somewhat, with Amy Clipston’s “Amish Heirloom” series, but one can understand this story without having read the series.
This novella is about an accident involving an automobile and an Amish buggy. An Amish young woman develops an attraction towards the driver of the buggy. The story goes into the trouble that the driver was in, in terms of his job.
This story was not my favorite in the book, but it was all right. There was not much in this story that was eventful. Perhaps my reaction is due to my having already read an Amish novel (Kathleen Fuller’s An Unbroken Heart) involving an accident; fortunately, in Clipston’s novella, nobody is killed.
Kathleen Fuller, “A Quiet Love.”
In this novella, there is Amos, who is in his twenties. Amos may be on the autistic spectrum, or he may be developmentally-delayed. He is slow in processing things, and he is rather blunt when he speaks. At the same time, he is very talented at drawing.
Dinah is also in her twenties. She stutters, and she has been a recluse on account of that, even though her mother pressures her to go out, meet people, and get married. She meets Amos because a relative of hers married a relative of his.
A romance develops between Amos and Dinah. Amos thinks that Dinah is beautiful, and he likes that Dinah does not talk down to him or take offense at what he says; he feels comfortable around her, in short. Dinah is drawn to Amos’ innocence. She also notices his insight when she is teaching him to read poetry. And there is the physical attraction.
This is a beautiful story, and it interacts thoughtfully with certain issues, such as the extent to which Amos understands romantic love, and his growth into adult responsibilities after he gets married. It is moving when two “odd ducks” find each other and make a life together. The appropriateness of such a relationship would probably be debated, though.
Vannetta Chapman, “Mischief in the Autumn Air.”
This story is a mystery, which is not surprising, since Vannetta Chapman writes Amish mysteries. A map involving U.S. history is involved. So is an auction.
I read this story in its entirety, but I had difficulty getting into it. It could have used more pathos, which would have allowed me to connect more with the characters. At the same time, the story’s distance did coincide with intelligent insights about God’s work in bringing people together to meet each other’s needs.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Humility and Limitations
At church last Sunday, the pastor preached about humility. He has
been going through the Book of James, and his text last Sunday was James
4:13-15. In that passage, James criticizes people who have grandiose
plans about what they are going to do tomorrow. James points out that
they do not know what will happen tomorrow, plus their life is a vapor.
They should say that, if the Lord wills, they will do those things
tomorrow.
The pastor was telling us the customary points about how we can die at any time, so we should not take our lives for granted. He exhorted us to consider how we are using the time that we have.
The pastor also told the story of a professional football player he knows. The football player was moving to another location to play for another team. The pastor asked him whether he was loyal to his current team, and the football player replied that it’s about money. The football player said that he only had a limited time to play this sport, since he will not be young and fit forever. During that time, he needs to make as much money as he can to provide for his family. Plus, money has to be set aside for his family in case he is injured and cannot play the sport anymore.
That story about the football player calls to my mind how humbling life is. That football player was probably confident—-the sort of person who exudes confidence in a room, and who has confidence in his abilities. One has to be confident to do a lot of things. Yet, reality makes him humble. He knows that, due to human limitations, there will come a time when he will be unable to play this sport. I would add that athletes are also humble when they train: they discipline themselves and they practice, for they realize that they need to prepare to play the game. They cannot simply rest on their laurels and expect for their natural talent to carry them through.
I am far from being an athlete, yet I, too, am humbled by life, a lot of times. Unfortunately, I can also get a pompous attitude, thinking that I’m morally better than certain people in certain areas. That’s one, but not the only, reason that I need to go to God in prayer: to draw closer to God amidst my imperfections.
The pastor was telling us the customary points about how we can die at any time, so we should not take our lives for granted. He exhorted us to consider how we are using the time that we have.
The pastor also told the story of a professional football player he knows. The football player was moving to another location to play for another team. The pastor asked him whether he was loyal to his current team, and the football player replied that it’s about money. The football player said that he only had a limited time to play this sport, since he will not be young and fit forever. During that time, he needs to make as much money as he can to provide for his family. Plus, money has to be set aside for his family in case he is injured and cannot play the sport anymore.
That story about the football player calls to my mind how humbling life is. That football player was probably confident—-the sort of person who exudes confidence in a room, and who has confidence in his abilities. One has to be confident to do a lot of things. Yet, reality makes him humble. He knows that, due to human limitations, there will come a time when he will be unable to play this sport. I would add that athletes are also humble when they train: they discipline themselves and they practice, for they realize that they need to prepare to play the game. They cannot simply rest on their laurels and expect for their natural talent to carry them through.
I am far from being an athlete, yet I, too, am humbled by life, a lot of times. Unfortunately, I can also get a pompous attitude, thinking that I’m morally better than certain people in certain areas. That’s one, but not the only, reason that I need to go to God in prayer: to draw closer to God amidst my imperfections.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Book Write-Up: Between Pain and Grace
Gerald W. Peterman and Andrew J. Schmutzer. Between Pain & Grace: A Biblical Theology of Suffering. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Gerald W. Peterman and Andrew J. Schmutzer teach Bible at the Moody Bible Institute. They contribute chapters to this book, Between Pain & Grace: A Biblical Theology of Suffering. Some of the book’s chapters are by Peterman, some are by Schmutzer, and the final chapter is by both.
This book is rather thin in terms of discussing why God allows suffering. The book blames the Fall, while also positing that God usually chooses not to intervene when God's image-bearers can do so.
The book is more substantive in discussing how Christians should view and respond to suffering, both their own and the suffering of others. It presents God and Jesus as beings who have suffered, against ancient Christian views that attempted to distance God from emotion. It is critical of Christians who maintain that Christians should never be sad because they have hope. It advocates lament. It talks about sexual abuse and mental illness. It contends that Christians should be sensitive to where people are when they admonish, encourage, or help, a la I Thessalonians 5:14.
The book has its share of positives. It is thoughtful and sophisticated, yet accessible to lay-readers. It does not use big words, but its expression is still deep and weighty. It tries to understand where people are coming from: why people may choose to leave the Christian faith in response to suffering, for example.
The book offered thought-provoking insights, some of which were new to me. For instance, one of the essays notes that people forgiving others is not exactly a major theme or command in the Old Testament, whereas it is in the New, and it says that this is because of God’s forgiveness of people through Christ. There are problems with this view. Leviticus 19:18 forbids revenge or carrying a grudge. Even before Christ came to earth, Ben Sira 28:2-7 exhorted people to forgive and even stated that God would not forgive those who withhold forgiveness from others; the New Testament commands on forgiveness may be continuing prior Jewish tradition, rather than just being based on atonement through Christ. The synoptic Gospels, which talk frequently about forgiveness, do not really stress atonement through Christ. Still, the essay in the book may be on to something. Revenge did occur in the Old Testament, and God did not always express explicit disapproval of that; also, there are not too many explicit commands in the Old Testament to forgive and reconcile with others.
(UPDATE: This is not to suggest that the book argues that God permitted revenge in the Old Testament, for it does not argue this. It is my impression, though, that the Old Testament at times allows for revenge. That could be consistent with this book's argument that the Old Testament did not stress interpersonal forgiveness on the same level that the New Testament did, even though this book's authors would disagree with this application of the argument.)
Another essay in the book contrasted Old Testament anthropology with New Testament anthropology. According to this essay, New Testament anthropology believed that humans consisted of body and soul, whereas Old Testament anthropology lacked that dualistic division. The essay chalks that difference up to progressive revelation. That discussion perhaps could have been developed some more, but the book’s notation of biblical diversity is one of its assets.
An edifying insight in the book concerned the family dysfunction in the Book of Genesis. One of the book’s authors said that, even though there was dysfunction, it was not the end of the world. God was still at work, bringing forth good out of bad. On the issue of forgiveness, there were times when what the book said may be uncomfortable for people struggling to forgive; in other cases, however, it offered a realistic view of forgiveness, one that empathizes with victims and upholds justice.
In terms of negatives, the book at first was like a laundry-list, as it looked at what the Bible said about the various kinds of suffering. It listed a lot of things but did not really integrate them into a larger picture. The book was also rather short in terms of solutions: for instance, it is critical of happy-clappy worship where people come and pretend to be happy, even if they are not, but it does not talk much about how worship can be structured to allow for lament.
Notwithstanding any shortcomings, the book is still an edifying read.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Gerald W. Peterman and Andrew J. Schmutzer teach Bible at the Moody Bible Institute. They contribute chapters to this book, Between Pain & Grace: A Biblical Theology of Suffering. Some of the book’s chapters are by Peterman, some are by Schmutzer, and the final chapter is by both.
This book is rather thin in terms of discussing why God allows suffering. The book blames the Fall, while also positing that God usually chooses not to intervene when God's image-bearers can do so.
The book is more substantive in discussing how Christians should view and respond to suffering, both their own and the suffering of others. It presents God and Jesus as beings who have suffered, against ancient Christian views that attempted to distance God from emotion. It is critical of Christians who maintain that Christians should never be sad because they have hope. It advocates lament. It talks about sexual abuse and mental illness. It contends that Christians should be sensitive to where people are when they admonish, encourage, or help, a la I Thessalonians 5:14.
The book has its share of positives. It is thoughtful and sophisticated, yet accessible to lay-readers. It does not use big words, but its expression is still deep and weighty. It tries to understand where people are coming from: why people may choose to leave the Christian faith in response to suffering, for example.
The book offered thought-provoking insights, some of which were new to me. For instance, one of the essays notes that people forgiving others is not exactly a major theme or command in the Old Testament, whereas it is in the New, and it says that this is because of God’s forgiveness of people through Christ. There are problems with this view. Leviticus 19:18 forbids revenge or carrying a grudge. Even before Christ came to earth, Ben Sira 28:2-7 exhorted people to forgive and even stated that God would not forgive those who withhold forgiveness from others; the New Testament commands on forgiveness may be continuing prior Jewish tradition, rather than just being based on atonement through Christ. The synoptic Gospels, which talk frequently about forgiveness, do not really stress atonement through Christ. Still, the essay in the book may be on to something. Revenge did occur in the Old Testament, and God did not always express explicit disapproval of that; also, there are not too many explicit commands in the Old Testament to forgive and reconcile with others.
(UPDATE: This is not to suggest that the book argues that God permitted revenge in the Old Testament, for it does not argue this. It is my impression, though, that the Old Testament at times allows for revenge. That could be consistent with this book's argument that the Old Testament did not stress interpersonal forgiveness on the same level that the New Testament did, even though this book's authors would disagree with this application of the argument.)
Another essay in the book contrasted Old Testament anthropology with New Testament anthropology. According to this essay, New Testament anthropology believed that humans consisted of body and soul, whereas Old Testament anthropology lacked that dualistic division. The essay chalks that difference up to progressive revelation. That discussion perhaps could have been developed some more, but the book’s notation of biblical diversity is one of its assets.
An edifying insight in the book concerned the family dysfunction in the Book of Genesis. One of the book’s authors said that, even though there was dysfunction, it was not the end of the world. God was still at work, bringing forth good out of bad. On the issue of forgiveness, there were times when what the book said may be uncomfortable for people struggling to forgive; in other cases, however, it offered a realistic view of forgiveness, one that empathizes with victims and upholds justice.
In terms of negatives, the book at first was like a laundry-list, as it looked at what the Bible said about the various kinds of suffering. It listed a lot of things but did not really integrate them into a larger picture. The book was also rather short in terms of solutions: for instance, it is critical of happy-clappy worship where people come and pretend to be happy, even if they are not, but it does not talk much about how worship can be structured to allow for lament.
Notwithstanding any shortcomings, the book is still an edifying read.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Book Write-Up: Genesis Revisited
Donald Arlo Jennings. Genesis Revisited: The Creation. Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2013. See here to buy the book.
Donald Arlo Jennings has a Ph.D. in Management Information Systems and has written about healthcare technology. In Genesis Revisited, Jennings attempts to answer questions about the Book of Genesis.
Jennings asks a variety of questions as he reads Genesis. There is the famous question of where Cain got his wife. Jennings wonders if the vast multitude of the people on earth truly could have descended from just eight people on the Ark. He asks where the races came from: the Tower of Babel story talks about God creating different languages, but how did God create different races?
The answer that Jennings proposes involves aliens. For Jennings, God could have created human-like creatures in outer space and populated the earth with them. That would explain where Cain got his wife, the multitude of people after the Flood, and perhaps even the different races: there are more people on earth than those descended from Adam and Eve and Noah. Jennings also speculates that God may also have sent renegade aliens to the earth as prisoners. The wicked people of Sodom and Gomorrah may have been from outer space, Jennings states. But Jennings also wonders if Adam himself may have been created in outer space, or if the Garden of Eden was necessarily on the planet earth.
Jennings biblical arguments have a lot of “What ifs?” Jennings often speculates, without much basis for his speculation. Occasionally, Jennings does appeal to phenomena in the Bible. He relies some on the work of Erich von Daniken. Jennings refers to the shiny divine chariot in Ezekiel 1 as a possible UFO phenomenon, and he relates the sons of God mating with the daughters of men in Genesis 6 to aliens having sexual intercourse with humans. Oddly, Jennings interprets the light coming into the world in John 1 in reference to UFOs, when the vast majority of interpreters would rightly interpret that in reference to Jesus coming to earth.
Jennings also relates stories about UFO sightings and abductions, perhaps in an attempt to demonstrate that what he is arguing is possible, even plausible.
Here are some critiques of the book:
A. The book could have been better organized. It was rambling, and Jennings often repeated points that he had made earlier. He should have organized the chapters by topic.
B. The book could have been better written. The grammar and the spelling were all right, but the prose could have been a lot tighter and more formal. Jennings comes across as someone meandering around, guessing this and guessing that. He uses “I” a lot, and that is not necessarily bad, but narrating more in the third person could have added a tone of formality to the book.
C. The book could have offered more substantive arguments. Jennings would dismiss evolution and say that he believes in the Bible, for example, as if that by itself were an argument against evolution. He should have mentioned arguments in support for evolution and said why he found them implausible, or at least referred to creationist or Intelligent Design resources that did so. At times, Jennings indicated some familiarity with debates, but this book had a lot of unsupported assertions.
D. The book could have been better had Jennings imitated an episode of Ancient Aliens, while adding his own questions and thoughts. Many scholars, probably correctly, disagree with what Ancient Aliens says. Yet, Ancient Aliens can be entertaining because it gets into mythology throughout cultures and compares it with supposed UFO and alien phenomena. The people on the show offer arguments and base what they are claiming on at least something. After watching Ancient Aliens, I often rush to the Internet to find how mainstream scholars explain the phenomena that Ancient Aliens discusses. With the exception of Jennings’ discussion about Noah’s Ark supposedly being found, there was nothing in Jennings book that I wanted to fact-check. Why would anyone want to fact-check a bunch of unsupported guesses?
E. Jennings’ theological framework was rather unclear. Of course, he is a Christian and believes in the Bible. But how would he reconcile that with seeing God’s chariot in Ezekiel 1 as a UFO? Jennings should have explained how he holds all that together.
I give this book one star.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.
Donald Arlo Jennings has a Ph.D. in Management Information Systems and has written about healthcare technology. In Genesis Revisited, Jennings attempts to answer questions about the Book of Genesis.
Jennings asks a variety of questions as he reads Genesis. There is the famous question of where Cain got his wife. Jennings wonders if the vast multitude of the people on earth truly could have descended from just eight people on the Ark. He asks where the races came from: the Tower of Babel story talks about God creating different languages, but how did God create different races?
The answer that Jennings proposes involves aliens. For Jennings, God could have created human-like creatures in outer space and populated the earth with them. That would explain where Cain got his wife, the multitude of people after the Flood, and perhaps even the different races: there are more people on earth than those descended from Adam and Eve and Noah. Jennings also speculates that God may also have sent renegade aliens to the earth as prisoners. The wicked people of Sodom and Gomorrah may have been from outer space, Jennings states. But Jennings also wonders if Adam himself may have been created in outer space, or if the Garden of Eden was necessarily on the planet earth.
Jennings biblical arguments have a lot of “What ifs?” Jennings often speculates, without much basis for his speculation. Occasionally, Jennings does appeal to phenomena in the Bible. He relies some on the work of Erich von Daniken. Jennings refers to the shiny divine chariot in Ezekiel 1 as a possible UFO phenomenon, and he relates the sons of God mating with the daughters of men in Genesis 6 to aliens having sexual intercourse with humans. Oddly, Jennings interprets the light coming into the world in John 1 in reference to UFOs, when the vast majority of interpreters would rightly interpret that in reference to Jesus coming to earth.
Jennings also relates stories about UFO sightings and abductions, perhaps in an attempt to demonstrate that what he is arguing is possible, even plausible.
Here are some critiques of the book:
A. The book could have been better organized. It was rambling, and Jennings often repeated points that he had made earlier. He should have organized the chapters by topic.
B. The book could have been better written. The grammar and the spelling were all right, but the prose could have been a lot tighter and more formal. Jennings comes across as someone meandering around, guessing this and guessing that. He uses “I” a lot, and that is not necessarily bad, but narrating more in the third person could have added a tone of formality to the book.
C. The book could have offered more substantive arguments. Jennings would dismiss evolution and say that he believes in the Bible, for example, as if that by itself were an argument against evolution. He should have mentioned arguments in support for evolution and said why he found them implausible, or at least referred to creationist or Intelligent Design resources that did so. At times, Jennings indicated some familiarity with debates, but this book had a lot of unsupported assertions.
D. The book could have been better had Jennings imitated an episode of Ancient Aliens, while adding his own questions and thoughts. Many scholars, probably correctly, disagree with what Ancient Aliens says. Yet, Ancient Aliens can be entertaining because it gets into mythology throughout cultures and compares it with supposed UFO and alien phenomena. The people on the show offer arguments and base what they are claiming on at least something. After watching Ancient Aliens, I often rush to the Internet to find how mainstream scholars explain the phenomena that Ancient Aliens discusses. With the exception of Jennings’ discussion about Noah’s Ark supposedly being found, there was nothing in Jennings book that I wanted to fact-check. Why would anyone want to fact-check a bunch of unsupported guesses?
E. Jennings’ theological framework was rather unclear. Of course, he is a Christian and believes in the Bible. But how would he reconcile that with seeing God’s chariot in Ezekiel 1 as a UFO? Jennings should have explained how he holds all that together.
I give this book one star.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Book Write-Up: How Jesus Saves the World from Us
Morgan Guyton. How Jesus Saves the World from Us: 12 Antidotes to Toxic Christianity. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Morgan Guyton blogs at the “Mercy Not Sacrifice” blog at Patheos and has written a number of online articles. He has also been a United Methodist pastor. In How Jesus Saves the World from Us, Guyton critiques what he considers to be toxic Christian attitudes. More saliently, Guyton offers what he believes is a constructive Christian alternative, referring to Scripture and his own experiences. This constructive alternative concerns one’s attitude towards sin and atonement, one’s view of Scripture, and one’s spirituality.
People who feel burned out by conservative evangelical Christianity will probably enjoy this book. At the same time, while many may stereotype Guyton as a liberal mainliner, he is not entirely that, for he does seem to embrace the historicity of the virgin birth and Jesus’ literal resurrection in this book. For Guyton, these events are examples of God doing something new in history, encouraging people to hope in God’s fresh activity.
Guyton also is edified by Roman Catholicism and Orthodox traditions. He speaks in favor of sacraments that allow people to sense the faith, and he tells a beautiful story of how he used to visit regularly a Catholic mass and respected the awe for the holy that he observed there. Moreover, while Guyton is critical of elements and attitudes within evangelicalism, he embraces elements of conservative Christianity.
In terms of positives, Guyton does offer food for thought, along with honest and vulnerable anecdotes. His story about visiting the Catholic mass was excellent, but so was his insight into Jesus’ parable of the sower. Guyton observed that the sower was wasteful in scattering the seed, even towards ground where the seed would not grow. For Guyton, that means that God is continually speaking to us, even when we are not receptive. Guyton’s stories about the humility that he observed in dying mainline churches, which he had previously considered “lukewarm,” also stood out.
Guyton’s critiques of evangelical attitudes drew an “Amen!” from this reviewer, and yet Guyton also told an endearing story about a friend of his who was once a progressive and became a conservative after being in a conservative Christian addiction program. Guyton respects this person’s path, even if it is not Guyton’s own, and Guyton views this person as a fellow co-worker for the Kingdom. Building bridges and respecting another’s path are commendable.
In terms of criticisms, I have three.
First of all, on page 128, Guyton states: “When was the last time you invited a homeless person into your home to eat at your table? I sure haven’t.” Guyton is implying that we should do this, while acknowledging that he has not (at least prior to this book). People may have understandable reservations when it comes to letting people into their home, however. Guyton should probably lead by example on this before he tells others what to do, and not only because it is tiring to see progressive Christians (not all, but many) put heavy burdens on people that they themselves do not carry. By leading by example, Guyton can tell stories about how something like this is done, and then other Christians may not be as apprehensive about taking that kind of step.
Second, on page 122, Guyton talks about an officer who shot an African-American woman. Responding to friends who knew this officer and said that he was a Christian man, Guyton states: “I don’t doubt Encinia is a good Christian man who believes that he must respond severely to any challenge to his complete authority.” That is a very judgmental statement. Guyton may have been saying this to set the stage for his excellent critique of Franklin Graham, who said that police shootings can be avoided through obedience to authority. As Guyton astutely notes, Jesus challenged authority! But Guyton could have made that point without presuming to know the motives of the officer.
Third, Guyton talks about how he has been jealous of famous evangelical pastors who pack auditoriums, but that God has used his relative lack of fame to teach him about the Kingdom. Guyton should have told more anecdotes to illustrate this. Earlier, he told a story about how a lesbian mainline pastor reached out to him at a low point in his life, but he should have elaborated about the lessons of the Kingdom that he has encountered in humble settings. That would have clarified his point, while balancing out—-or better, overshadowing—-his personal complaints.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley, in exchange for an honest review.
Morgan Guyton blogs at the “Mercy Not Sacrifice” blog at Patheos and has written a number of online articles. He has also been a United Methodist pastor. In How Jesus Saves the World from Us, Guyton critiques what he considers to be toxic Christian attitudes. More saliently, Guyton offers what he believes is a constructive Christian alternative, referring to Scripture and his own experiences. This constructive alternative concerns one’s attitude towards sin and atonement, one’s view of Scripture, and one’s spirituality.
People who feel burned out by conservative evangelical Christianity will probably enjoy this book. At the same time, while many may stereotype Guyton as a liberal mainliner, he is not entirely that, for he does seem to embrace the historicity of the virgin birth and Jesus’ literal resurrection in this book. For Guyton, these events are examples of God doing something new in history, encouraging people to hope in God’s fresh activity.
Guyton also is edified by Roman Catholicism and Orthodox traditions. He speaks in favor of sacraments that allow people to sense the faith, and he tells a beautiful story of how he used to visit regularly a Catholic mass and respected the awe for the holy that he observed there. Moreover, while Guyton is critical of elements and attitudes within evangelicalism, he embraces elements of conservative Christianity.
In terms of positives, Guyton does offer food for thought, along with honest and vulnerable anecdotes. His story about visiting the Catholic mass was excellent, but so was his insight into Jesus’ parable of the sower. Guyton observed that the sower was wasteful in scattering the seed, even towards ground where the seed would not grow. For Guyton, that means that God is continually speaking to us, even when we are not receptive. Guyton’s stories about the humility that he observed in dying mainline churches, which he had previously considered “lukewarm,” also stood out.
Guyton’s critiques of evangelical attitudes drew an “Amen!” from this reviewer, and yet Guyton also told an endearing story about a friend of his who was once a progressive and became a conservative after being in a conservative Christian addiction program. Guyton respects this person’s path, even if it is not Guyton’s own, and Guyton views this person as a fellow co-worker for the Kingdom. Building bridges and respecting another’s path are commendable.
In terms of criticisms, I have three.
First of all, on page 128, Guyton states: “When was the last time you invited a homeless person into your home to eat at your table? I sure haven’t.” Guyton is implying that we should do this, while acknowledging that he has not (at least prior to this book). People may have understandable reservations when it comes to letting people into their home, however. Guyton should probably lead by example on this before he tells others what to do, and not only because it is tiring to see progressive Christians (not all, but many) put heavy burdens on people that they themselves do not carry. By leading by example, Guyton can tell stories about how something like this is done, and then other Christians may not be as apprehensive about taking that kind of step.
Second, on page 122, Guyton talks about an officer who shot an African-American woman. Responding to friends who knew this officer and said that he was a Christian man, Guyton states: “I don’t doubt Encinia is a good Christian man who believes that he must respond severely to any challenge to his complete authority.” That is a very judgmental statement. Guyton may have been saying this to set the stage for his excellent critique of Franklin Graham, who said that police shootings can be avoided through obedience to authority. As Guyton astutely notes, Jesus challenged authority! But Guyton could have made that point without presuming to know the motives of the officer.
Third, Guyton talks about how he has been jealous of famous evangelical pastors who pack auditoriums, but that God has used his relative lack of fame to teach him about the Kingdom. Guyton should have told more anecdotes to illustrate this. Earlier, he told a story about how a lesbian mainline pastor reached out to him at a low point in his life, but he should have elaborated about the lessons of the Kingdom that he has encountered in humble settings. That would have clarified his point, while balancing out—-or better, overshadowing—-his personal complaints.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley, in exchange for an honest review.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Book Write-Up: A Doubter's Guide to the Ten Commandments
John Dickson. A Doubter’s Guide to the Ten Commandments: How, For Better or Worse, Our Ideas About the Good Life Come from Moses and Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. See here to buy the book.
John Dickson has a Ph.D. in Ancient History from Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. In A Doubter’s Guide to the Ten Commandments, Dickson comments on each of the ten commandments. Although Dickson in his comments shares his knowledge of ancient history with readers and refers them to scholarly books, this book is popular rather than scholarly.
Here are some of my comments on the book:
A. Narrowing down Dickson’s approach to the commandments is difficult, for Dickson does a variety of things throughout the book. On some commandments, he refers to what the commandments may have meant in light of their ancient Near Eastern context. In other chapters, by contrast, that sort of analysis was sorely lacking, and Dickson focused instead on philosophical issues (i.e., is God necessary for morality to exist?) or how Judaism and Christianity compare with other world religions. Both of these issues are relevant to contemporary debates between Christians and atheists. Parts of the book are rather homiletical, as Dickson quotes such thinkers as C.S. Lewis and John Calvin. Throughout the book, Dickson discusses the significance of the commandments in the New Testament: how the New Testament interprets, applies, or amplifies the commandments.
The book had a lot of asides and was somewhat meandering. In some cases, Dickson seemed contradictory, as when he was addressing the question of whether God in the Old Testament blessed people materially as a reward for good behavior and whether that affirmed the prosperity Gospel. Dickson is against the prosperity Gospel, but he was rather contradictory on material blessings in the Old Testament. There were also occasions when his point was a bit unclear. He says more than once that what has influenced Western civilization for the better has been the commandments as they have been interpreted in Christianity, rather than Judaism or their original meaning. What exactly Dickson’s point was in making that statement is difficult to determine. Was this his justification for looking at what the New Testament said about the commandments? Was he somehow marginalizing what the commandments meant in their ancient Near Eastern context or Judaism? But Dickson does discuss what they meant within those contexts, often positively! Even the subtitle of the book is confusing: “How, For Better or Worse, Our Ideas About the Good Life Come From Moses and Jesus.” Better or worse? Dickson argues consistently that the ten commandments made a positive contribution to Western civilization. Where’s this “worse” come from?
Part of the book’s charm is in its thoughtful, informed, and honest meanderings. Still, perhaps the book could have been better organized, with more consideration of the commandments’ ancient Near Eastern context and their place in biblical religion. In each chapter on the commandments, Dickson could have had sections on what a commandment meant in its original context, how Judaism and Christianity interpreted it, and that commandment’s relevance to today.
B. Dickson’s overall approach is to see biblical religion as different from, and superior to, other religions. It is interesting how Christian apologists take different approaches in their comparison of biblical religions with other religions, and the point that they believe their comparison is making. Dickson stresses the contrasts: he contrasts the Sabbath commandment with ancient views on rest and work, the biblical God with pagan gods, and Christian attitudes on charity with pagan attitudes. He regards biblical religion as distinct, superior, and revolutionary. Yet, there are other Christian apologists, such as David Marshall, who look at similarities between Christianity and other religions and imply that this shows God is revealing Godself to humanity, cross-culturally. (Marshall also makes contrasts and believes that biblical religion is revolutionary.) Do the biblical religion’s differences from other religions attest to its truth, or are its similarities with other religions what demonstrate the truth of what it is saying? Such a discussion would be interesting!
The points that Dickson makes are certainly relevant and important to consider. There may be truth in a lot of what he says about the differences between biblical religion and other religions. At the same time, one should remember that there are other perspectives on this issue, and that these other perspectives, too, may be referring to details that are true, or that are part of the picture. Atheist biblical scholar Hector Avalos recently quoted on John Loftus’ “Debunking Christianity” blog a statement by Christian scholar John Goldingday. This statement appears on pages 42-43 of Goldingday’s book, Do We Still Need the New Testament?:
“What difference did Jesus’ coming make to the world? It has been argued that ‘The Church has made more changes on earth for good than any other movements of force in history,’ including the growth of hospitals, universities, literacy and education, capitalism and free enterprise, representative government, separation of political powers, civil liberty, the abolition of slavery, modern science, the discovery of the Americas, the elevation of women, the civilizing of primitive cultures, and the setting of languages to writing.
“It is easy to dispute this claim. The church resisted some of these developments just listed, some are not particularly Christian, and all were encouraged by humanistic forces and reflect Greek thinking as much as gospel thinking.”
There are passages in Greco-Roman literature that depict Zeus as just and compassionate. Hospitality was an honored value in the Greco-Roman world, which is why Josephus tried to present Judaism as a compassionate religion to his Roman audience. Morton Smith, in his article “Common Theology of the Ancient Near East,” which appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952) 135-147, argued that the ancient Israelites resembled other ancient Near Eastern societies in their belief in a god who was just and compassionate.
This is not to suggest that Dickson should repudiate his viewpoint. This book would have been better, however, had he thoughtfully wrestled with the other side, as he thoughtfully engages perspectives throughout the book.
C. There are times when Dickson makes claims without telling the reader the source for his claims. When he does document his claims, however, he is very helpful. When Dickson contrasts Christian attitudes on charity with pagan attitudes, he refers readers to a scholarly book on the subject. When Dickson contrasts Jesus’ stance on vows with Jewish stances, Dickson refers readers to specific passages in the Mishnah about vows that are not binding.
D. The book is informative. Dickson’s interpretation of the Sabbath commandment in light of ancient conceptions of work is noteworthy. Dickson also refers to a medieval Christian concept that a poor person who steals to feed his family is technically not stealing, since the poor person is entitled to provision. Dickson probably does not say this to recommend such behavior, but rather to show that the commandment against stealing is about more than what’s yours is yours, and what’s mine is mine.
E. Reading the Sermon on the Mount can be difficult. When Jesus tells us to reconcile with our brother who has something against us before we offer our gift to God (Matthew 5:24), does that mean we have to make everyone like us, before we can worship God? But Jesus offended people! When Jesus says that those who lust after women are adulterers at heart (Matthew 5:27-32), does Jesus forbid men to have a natural sex drive? And is Jesus really equating hate with murder and lust with adultery? When I told a secular therapist that, she was baffled: of course, she thought that actual murder was worse than hating someone!
An asset to this book is that Dickson engages these questions. In some cases, he merely makes assertions. In other cases, he offers an argument for his interpretation, as he does regarding Matthew 5:27-32. His sensitivity to these issues was impressive. His interpretations are reasonable, yet they maintain the challenge of the Sermon on the Mount.
F. There were discussions in Dickson’s book that were inspiring and edifying. A discussion that particularly comes to mind concerns how Christians can love everybody, while still maintaining high standards about what is right and wrong. Humility about one’s own shortcomings plays a key role in that, according to Dickson.
This is a good book, and I am definitely open to reading other books by Dickson.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.
John Dickson has a Ph.D. in Ancient History from Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. In A Doubter’s Guide to the Ten Commandments, Dickson comments on each of the ten commandments. Although Dickson in his comments shares his knowledge of ancient history with readers and refers them to scholarly books, this book is popular rather than scholarly.
Here are some of my comments on the book:
A. Narrowing down Dickson’s approach to the commandments is difficult, for Dickson does a variety of things throughout the book. On some commandments, he refers to what the commandments may have meant in light of their ancient Near Eastern context. In other chapters, by contrast, that sort of analysis was sorely lacking, and Dickson focused instead on philosophical issues (i.e., is God necessary for morality to exist?) or how Judaism and Christianity compare with other world religions. Both of these issues are relevant to contemporary debates between Christians and atheists. Parts of the book are rather homiletical, as Dickson quotes such thinkers as C.S. Lewis and John Calvin. Throughout the book, Dickson discusses the significance of the commandments in the New Testament: how the New Testament interprets, applies, or amplifies the commandments.
The book had a lot of asides and was somewhat meandering. In some cases, Dickson seemed contradictory, as when he was addressing the question of whether God in the Old Testament blessed people materially as a reward for good behavior and whether that affirmed the prosperity Gospel. Dickson is against the prosperity Gospel, but he was rather contradictory on material blessings in the Old Testament. There were also occasions when his point was a bit unclear. He says more than once that what has influenced Western civilization for the better has been the commandments as they have been interpreted in Christianity, rather than Judaism or their original meaning. What exactly Dickson’s point was in making that statement is difficult to determine. Was this his justification for looking at what the New Testament said about the commandments? Was he somehow marginalizing what the commandments meant in their ancient Near Eastern context or Judaism? But Dickson does discuss what they meant within those contexts, often positively! Even the subtitle of the book is confusing: “How, For Better or Worse, Our Ideas About the Good Life Come From Moses and Jesus.” Better or worse? Dickson argues consistently that the ten commandments made a positive contribution to Western civilization. Where’s this “worse” come from?
Part of the book’s charm is in its thoughtful, informed, and honest meanderings. Still, perhaps the book could have been better organized, with more consideration of the commandments’ ancient Near Eastern context and their place in biblical religion. In each chapter on the commandments, Dickson could have had sections on what a commandment meant in its original context, how Judaism and Christianity interpreted it, and that commandment’s relevance to today.
B. Dickson’s overall approach is to see biblical religion as different from, and superior to, other religions. It is interesting how Christian apologists take different approaches in their comparison of biblical religions with other religions, and the point that they believe their comparison is making. Dickson stresses the contrasts: he contrasts the Sabbath commandment with ancient views on rest and work, the biblical God with pagan gods, and Christian attitudes on charity with pagan attitudes. He regards biblical religion as distinct, superior, and revolutionary. Yet, there are other Christian apologists, such as David Marshall, who look at similarities between Christianity and other religions and imply that this shows God is revealing Godself to humanity, cross-culturally. (Marshall also makes contrasts and believes that biblical religion is revolutionary.) Do the biblical religion’s differences from other religions attest to its truth, or are its similarities with other religions what demonstrate the truth of what it is saying? Such a discussion would be interesting!
The points that Dickson makes are certainly relevant and important to consider. There may be truth in a lot of what he says about the differences between biblical religion and other religions. At the same time, one should remember that there are other perspectives on this issue, and that these other perspectives, too, may be referring to details that are true, or that are part of the picture. Atheist biblical scholar Hector Avalos recently quoted on John Loftus’ “Debunking Christianity” blog a statement by Christian scholar John Goldingday. This statement appears on pages 42-43 of Goldingday’s book, Do We Still Need the New Testament?:
“What difference did Jesus’ coming make to the world? It has been argued that ‘The Church has made more changes on earth for good than any other movements of force in history,’ including the growth of hospitals, universities, literacy and education, capitalism and free enterprise, representative government, separation of political powers, civil liberty, the abolition of slavery, modern science, the discovery of the Americas, the elevation of women, the civilizing of primitive cultures, and the setting of languages to writing.
“It is easy to dispute this claim. The church resisted some of these developments just listed, some are not particularly Christian, and all were encouraged by humanistic forces and reflect Greek thinking as much as gospel thinking.”
There are passages in Greco-Roman literature that depict Zeus as just and compassionate. Hospitality was an honored value in the Greco-Roman world, which is why Josephus tried to present Judaism as a compassionate religion to his Roman audience. Morton Smith, in his article “Common Theology of the Ancient Near East,” which appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952) 135-147, argued that the ancient Israelites resembled other ancient Near Eastern societies in their belief in a god who was just and compassionate.
This is not to suggest that Dickson should repudiate his viewpoint. This book would have been better, however, had he thoughtfully wrestled with the other side, as he thoughtfully engages perspectives throughout the book.
C. There are times when Dickson makes claims without telling the reader the source for his claims. When he does document his claims, however, he is very helpful. When Dickson contrasts Christian attitudes on charity with pagan attitudes, he refers readers to a scholarly book on the subject. When Dickson contrasts Jesus’ stance on vows with Jewish stances, Dickson refers readers to specific passages in the Mishnah about vows that are not binding.
D. The book is informative. Dickson’s interpretation of the Sabbath commandment in light of ancient conceptions of work is noteworthy. Dickson also refers to a medieval Christian concept that a poor person who steals to feed his family is technically not stealing, since the poor person is entitled to provision. Dickson probably does not say this to recommend such behavior, but rather to show that the commandment against stealing is about more than what’s yours is yours, and what’s mine is mine.
E. Reading the Sermon on the Mount can be difficult. When Jesus tells us to reconcile with our brother who has something against us before we offer our gift to God (Matthew 5:24), does that mean we have to make everyone like us, before we can worship God? But Jesus offended people! When Jesus says that those who lust after women are adulterers at heart (Matthew 5:27-32), does Jesus forbid men to have a natural sex drive? And is Jesus really equating hate with murder and lust with adultery? When I told a secular therapist that, she was baffled: of course, she thought that actual murder was worse than hating someone!
An asset to this book is that Dickson engages these questions. In some cases, he merely makes assertions. In other cases, he offers an argument for his interpretation, as he does regarding Matthew 5:27-32. His sensitivity to these issues was impressive. His interpretations are reasonable, yet they maintain the challenge of the Sermon on the Mount.
F. There were discussions in Dickson’s book that were inspiring and edifying. A discussion that particularly comes to mind concerns how Christians can love everybody, while still maintaining high standards about what is right and wrong. Humility about one’s own shortcomings plays a key role in that, according to Dickson.
This is a good book, and I am definitely open to reading other books by Dickson.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)