Posts
Jacqueline A. Bussie. Outlaw Christian: Finding Authentic Faith by Breaking the “Rules.” Nashville: Nelson Books, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Jacqueline A. Bussie teaches theology and religion at Concordia College. In Outlaw Christian: Finding Authentic Faith by Breaking the “Rules,”
Bussie challenges what she believes are myths: about God, suffering,
and whether people can make a positive difference in the world. Instead
of embracing these myths, she advocates being an “Outlaw Christian.”
What is an “Outlaw Christian”? Bussie is dissatisfied with a lot of
the pat answers that Christians have given to the problem of evil, the
question of why a good God allows evil and suffering. She supports
being honest with God and other people about pain. The lament Psalms,
the Book of Job, and Jesus’ cry of abandonment from the cross are cited
as biblical justifications for her position.
Bussie also challenges the myth that people cannot successfully fight
injustice or make a positive difference, as she refers readers to books
that tell a different story, while sharing with readers what those
books are about. And, while Bussie struggles with thanking God for her
food, when there are so many people in the world who are starving, she
still advocates an attitude of appreciating the good things in life, and
even seeing those things as gifts from God.
Here are some thoughts about the book:
A. Bussie’s stories made the book effective. She talks about how
Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel had a negative image of God yet remained
an observant Jew. She relayed a Buddhist tale about a woman who lost
someone and learned that her suffering was not unique, for everyone else
had lost someone, too. She shared about a horrible experience that her
husband had, and his attempts to move past that. And, since she is a
teacher, she told stories about her teaching experiences: the insights
that she gained from her students and imparted to them. The book was
honest, thoughtful, and eloquent.
B. The book may appeal to people who, like me, get a little
irritated when people spit out the theologically correct answer and
high-five each other or pat themselves on the back after doing so. In
my opinion, there is nothing wrong with embracing these answers, as long
as there is sensitivity to the fact that not everyone finds them
convincing or helpful.
C. A possible disadvantage to the book is that Bussie does not
really offer a robust explanation as to why God permits suffering. She
does not wrestle with the Scriptural passages that offer an explanation
for some forms of suffering: that God rewards and punishes, that God
disciplines Christians to improve their character, or that suffering is
part of God’s plan. Bussie appears rather skeptical of those
explanations, as they have been offered by Christians, but she never
wrestles with biblical authors’ endorsement of them (at least not in
this book).
D. When Bussie does attempt to reconcile God’s existence with the
reality of suffering, she says things that may be controversial. Bussie
seems to compare God with a parent who unintentionally hurt his or her
child. Elsewhere, Bussie says that our prayers to God can actually
teach God something. The book could have been better had it tried to
develop these thoughts, or referred to theologians with similar ideas.
E. At the same time, there is a part of me that can understand why
Bussie may have chosen to take the route that she did. Bussie is
dissatisfied with a lot of the religious solutions that have been
offered for the problem of evil, for she does not believe that those are
good enough reasons for God to permit evil, considering how horrible
evil is. And, even though she offers some speculation of her own, she
herself cannot find a solution that satisfies her. Instead of trying to
find an answer to the problem of evil, therefore, she does something
else. She acknowledges that evil exists and that the religious
solutions that people have offered to explain its existence fall short.
She appears to embrace that she does not know why evil exists, and she
turns her attention to the question of where people should go from
there.
F. I recently read another book on suffering and criticized it
because, while it discussed the importance of lament, it failed to offer
ways to incorporate lament into worship services. Bussie actually did
this, on some level, when she raised the possibility of using lament
Psalms in worship services. That is a good idea. Worship services
should not consist solely of lament, for they should also include
rejoicing. But there are plenty of Scriptures that express lament, and
they should be incorporated into worship services as examples of the
experiences that people have had in their relationship with God.
G. Bussie stressed the importance of community. For Bussie,
community can be a place where people give and receive comfort, and
community can be a force for societal improvement. At the same time,
she acknowledged that there is a dearth of community in the United
States, especially in comparison with the Third World. Bussie should
have rigorously and specifically addressed the question of how community
can be fostered in the United States, considering the importance that
she places upon it. She does mention insights that may intersect with
that: how one can sit with someone in pain, for example. Still, due to
the dearth of community, many people may be unaware that someone is in
pain.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the
publisher through BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Phyllis Schlafly
Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly has passed on at the age of
92. In this post, I will share my interactions with her thought
throughout the course of my life, as well as some links.
When did I first hear of Phyllis Schlafly? Well, her name was mentioned in David Stockman’s The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, and I read that book in the sixth grade. Stockman was saying that he wanted to distance the Reagan Revolution from the religious right so it would focus instead on economic issues, and Schlafly was one of the names that he mentioned. But her name did not mean anything to me at the time, so it did not stand out to me.
It may have been in sixth grade or in junior high school that her name came to mean more to me. I liked to read right-wing conspiracy literature at the time, John Birch Society sort of stuff. A relative of mine had a few of Schlafly’s books. I borrowed and read her 1964 classic, A Choice Not an Echo. The book endorsed conservative Senator Barry Goldwater for President, while criticizing the role of one-worlder wealthy “kingmakers” in selecting Republican Presidential candidates.
I came across her name after that. Opposing Viewpoints was a series of books that featured “both sides” of controversial questions, and excerpts from Schlafly’s writings were often used as a representative of the “conservative” side. Schlafly weighed in on military issues, advocating American military superiority over the Soviet Union, as well as social and cultural issues, such as sex education.
In high school, I wrote to her Eagle Forum organization a couple of times, requesting information on such topics as sex education and Global Education, and her group sent me information packets on these issues. It also sent me a catalog, which advertised her books, back issues of The Phyllis Schlafly Report, and a biography of her by Carol Felsenthal, a feminist critic of Schlafly who decided to spend time with her and write a biography. I ordered some of these things; nowadays, I’d use Amazon for that, but I don’t think Amazon existed back then! I took my ring-bound issues of the Phyllis Schlafly Report with me to the beach, and I really enjoyed Carol Felsenthal’s biography.
I was on Eagle Forum’s mailing list, and I got a letter saying that Phyllis Schlafly would be speaking at Indiana State University on a particular date. ISU was in the town next over, and my Dad and I went to hear her speak. She did a good job answering hostile questions from the liberal professors and students. I wish I had asked her a question, though: How would conservatives reconcile their support for work requirements for mothers receiving welfare, with their belief that women should, if possible, stay at home and take care of their children? I’ve learned since then that different conservatives believe different things about this, but I was unaware of that at the time.
Her name came up more than once in college. A professor told me that she moderated a debate on the Equal Rights Amendment on the campus a while back, and that Schlafly spoke at that. She said that Schlafly was a respectful person, even though they disagreed on the ERA. In 1996, someone forwarded me an article by Schlafly that was critical of free trade. I was supporting the protectionist Pat Buchanan at the time, and, with all of the conservatives who supported NAFTA and GATT, I was happy that my conservative heroine agreed with Pat on this.
Years later, in the 2000s, I listened to her on C-Span, taking calls, and those two-or-so hours went by quickly!
In 2010, I was questioning my conservatism. I think it was that year that I started voting for more Democrats! But I decided to read a book of hers that I had long wanted to read but never could find. And, now that Amazon existed, I could do that! It was Schlafly’s The Power of the Positive Woman. I read and blogged about that book, and also Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. One question that I had in reading Schlafly’s book is whether she truly believed that women should stay at home rather than going to work. I learned that her position was much more complex than that.
After that, I followed her sporadically, but her views did not interest me as much, anymore. I was in a different place. I read her very last column this morning, and it just did not resonate with me! There are areas in which her version of conservatism has impacted me, even until today, when I am more of a progressive. Her support for national sovereignty and her criticism of free trade are such areas. Plus, maybe she was right that phonics was the best way to teach kids to read: it worked for me when I was a kid! And, while A Choice Not An Echo may have been simplistic, its insight that wealthy people have a lot of influence over the political process remains a valid insight, though I would take it beyond saying that there is a liberal conspiracy. But social conservatism and building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico are alien from where I currently am ideologically.
In terms of why I liked her, part of it was her conservatism, but there were other reasons as well. She was tough. She was unafraid to question what was considered to be conventional wisdom. She was intelligent. She could take on the intelligentsia in debates and do well. When she was criticized by a politician for speaking about the ERA without a law degree, she went on to get a law degree! She had a rebel attitude, and that resonated with me in high school and in college.
Now for the links:
Schlafly’s last column, which was in my Townhall list of articles this morning. I do have to give her credit for staying active until her death!
Ann Coulter’s tribute. This is longer than Ann Coulter’s columns usually are, and it was a rather comprehensive account of Schlafly’s life and accomplishments. I actually have that 800-or-so page book on Kissinger that Coulter mentions, but I have not yet read it! Coutler also says that Schlafly had the opportunity to go to Harvard Law School, before it even admitted women, but Schlafly did not go.
The New York Times obituary. Overall, I found this to be a balanced piece. What particularly intrigued me was some of Schlafly’s ideological shifts. She was more of a moderate when she was in college, and she initially thought that the ERA was harmless.
Ian Millhiser’s article on ThinkProgress comparing Schlafly with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Both had similar backgrounds, but they went in opposite directions on legal issues involving gender. According to Millhiser, Schlafly may have been instrumental in defeating the ERA, but her contribution was not lasting.
Here are links to the posts that I wrote when blogging through Schlafly Power of a Positive Woman. I have grown since then, so please do not be too hard on me! But these posts do reflect a sincere wrestling with Schlafly’s thought:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
When did I first hear of Phyllis Schlafly? Well, her name was mentioned in David Stockman’s The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, and I read that book in the sixth grade. Stockman was saying that he wanted to distance the Reagan Revolution from the religious right so it would focus instead on economic issues, and Schlafly was one of the names that he mentioned. But her name did not mean anything to me at the time, so it did not stand out to me.
It may have been in sixth grade or in junior high school that her name came to mean more to me. I liked to read right-wing conspiracy literature at the time, John Birch Society sort of stuff. A relative of mine had a few of Schlafly’s books. I borrowed and read her 1964 classic, A Choice Not an Echo. The book endorsed conservative Senator Barry Goldwater for President, while criticizing the role of one-worlder wealthy “kingmakers” in selecting Republican Presidential candidates.
I came across her name after that. Opposing Viewpoints was a series of books that featured “both sides” of controversial questions, and excerpts from Schlafly’s writings were often used as a representative of the “conservative” side. Schlafly weighed in on military issues, advocating American military superiority over the Soviet Union, as well as social and cultural issues, such as sex education.
In high school, I wrote to her Eagle Forum organization a couple of times, requesting information on such topics as sex education and Global Education, and her group sent me information packets on these issues. It also sent me a catalog, which advertised her books, back issues of The Phyllis Schlafly Report, and a biography of her by Carol Felsenthal, a feminist critic of Schlafly who decided to spend time with her and write a biography. I ordered some of these things; nowadays, I’d use Amazon for that, but I don’t think Amazon existed back then! I took my ring-bound issues of the Phyllis Schlafly Report with me to the beach, and I really enjoyed Carol Felsenthal’s biography.
I was on Eagle Forum’s mailing list, and I got a letter saying that Phyllis Schlafly would be speaking at Indiana State University on a particular date. ISU was in the town next over, and my Dad and I went to hear her speak. She did a good job answering hostile questions from the liberal professors and students. I wish I had asked her a question, though: How would conservatives reconcile their support for work requirements for mothers receiving welfare, with their belief that women should, if possible, stay at home and take care of their children? I’ve learned since then that different conservatives believe different things about this, but I was unaware of that at the time.
Her name came up more than once in college. A professor told me that she moderated a debate on the Equal Rights Amendment on the campus a while back, and that Schlafly spoke at that. She said that Schlafly was a respectful person, even though they disagreed on the ERA. In 1996, someone forwarded me an article by Schlafly that was critical of free trade. I was supporting the protectionist Pat Buchanan at the time, and, with all of the conservatives who supported NAFTA and GATT, I was happy that my conservative heroine agreed with Pat on this.
Years later, in the 2000s, I listened to her on C-Span, taking calls, and those two-or-so hours went by quickly!
In 2010, I was questioning my conservatism. I think it was that year that I started voting for more Democrats! But I decided to read a book of hers that I had long wanted to read but never could find. And, now that Amazon existed, I could do that! It was Schlafly’s The Power of the Positive Woman. I read and blogged about that book, and also Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. One question that I had in reading Schlafly’s book is whether she truly believed that women should stay at home rather than going to work. I learned that her position was much more complex than that.
After that, I followed her sporadically, but her views did not interest me as much, anymore. I was in a different place. I read her very last column this morning, and it just did not resonate with me! There are areas in which her version of conservatism has impacted me, even until today, when I am more of a progressive. Her support for national sovereignty and her criticism of free trade are such areas. Plus, maybe she was right that phonics was the best way to teach kids to read: it worked for me when I was a kid! And, while A Choice Not An Echo may have been simplistic, its insight that wealthy people have a lot of influence over the political process remains a valid insight, though I would take it beyond saying that there is a liberal conspiracy. But social conservatism and building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico are alien from where I currently am ideologically.
In terms of why I liked her, part of it was her conservatism, but there were other reasons as well. She was tough. She was unafraid to question what was considered to be conventional wisdom. She was intelligent. She could take on the intelligentsia in debates and do well. When she was criticized by a politician for speaking about the ERA without a law degree, she went on to get a law degree! She had a rebel attitude, and that resonated with me in high school and in college.
Now for the links:
Schlafly’s last column, which was in my Townhall list of articles this morning. I do have to give her credit for staying active until her death!
Ann Coulter’s tribute. This is longer than Ann Coulter’s columns usually are, and it was a rather comprehensive account of Schlafly’s life and accomplishments. I actually have that 800-or-so page book on Kissinger that Coulter mentions, but I have not yet read it! Coutler also says that Schlafly had the opportunity to go to Harvard Law School, before it even admitted women, but Schlafly did not go.
The New York Times obituary. Overall, I found this to be a balanced piece. What particularly intrigued me was some of Schlafly’s ideological shifts. She was more of a moderate when she was in college, and she initially thought that the ERA was harmless.
Ian Millhiser’s article on ThinkProgress comparing Schlafly with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Both had similar backgrounds, but they went in opposite directions on legal issues involving gender. According to Millhiser, Schlafly may have been instrumental in defeating the ERA, but her contribution was not lasting.
Here are links to the posts that I wrote when blogging through Schlafly Power of a Positive Woman. I have grown since then, so please do not be too hard on me! But these posts do reflect a sincere wrestling with Schlafly’s thought:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Book Write-Up: The Earliest Christologies
James L. Papandrea. The Earliest Christologies: Five Images of Christ in the Postapostolic Age. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
James L. Papandrea teaches church history at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, which is at Northwestern University. Papandrea has a Ph.D. from Northwestern University.
The Earliest Christologies is about the different beliefs about Jesus and Christ after the time of the apostles. The book focuses on the second century C.E., but it also refers to issues and personalities from the third-fourth centuries C.E., and occasionally to the New Testament.
Papandrea discusses five Christologies. First, there was Angel Adoptionism. Angel Adoptionism maintained that an angel inhabited and empowered the man Jesus at Jesus’ conception. This form of Adoptionism tended to accept the virgin birth of Jesus.
Second, there was Spirit Adoptionism. Spirit Adoptionism held that the Holy Spirit anointed Jesus at Jesus’ baptism. This form of Adoptionism tended to reject the virgin birth.
Both forms of Adoptionism differentiated between the man Jesus and the spiritual “Christ” who empowered him, meaning that they did not regard Jesus as divine. They thought that the supernatural empowered Jesus as a reward for Jesus’ piety and obedience to God’s law: Angel Adoptionism believed that God foresaw Jesus’ obedience and rewarded him at conception, whereas Spirit Adoptionism held that God rewarded Jesus later in Jesus’ life, at his baptism. According to Papandrea, Adoptionism was primarily accepted by Jewish Christians, who were monotheistic and upheld obedience towards the Torah.
Whereas the Adoptionisms treated Jesus as a mere man who was empowered by the divine, the third and the fourth Christologies that Papandrea discusses went to the other extreme: they maintained that Jesus was fully divine, not human. Docetic Gnosticism held that Jesus was a phantom, one who only appeared human but actually was not. Hybrid Gnosticism, however, thought that Jesus had a body, albeit an ethereal one rather than a human one. Both of these Christologies believed that Jesus pre-existed his coming to earth and was a deity who had an origin from other deities. Whereas Adoptionism believed in one God and recoiled from any idea that a god could be created, which were possible reasons that it was embraced by Jewish Christians, the Gnosticisms thought that gods could be created; thus, the Gnosticisms were more consistent with paganism. Papandrea also discusses the ethical implications of the Gnosticisms, as some Gnostics took their contempt for the flesh in a hedonistic direction (have fun, for the flesh does not matter, anyway!), and other Gnostics suppressed the flesh through asceticism.
According to Papandrea, these four Christologies largely rejected the idea the Christ suffered. Both Adoptionisms maintained that the spiritual “Christ” left the man Jesus before Jesus died. Although there were some Hybrid Gnosticisms that accepted that Christ suffered, many thought that Christ shed his body and escaped suffering. Papandrea also states that these four Christologies largely rejected the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The fifth Christology that Papandrea discusses is the one that most Christians today embrace: Logos Christology. According to this view, Jesus pre-existed his coming to earth and was the divine Logos, the son of God the Father. God the Logos became incarnate in Jesus, who was fully human and fully divine during his lifetime, and who remained so even after his resurrection. For Papandrea, this position was the position of the apostles, and it was the majority, mainstream position in second century Christianity. At the same time, Papandrea acknowledges that it became refined and crystallized through its encounter with alternative positions. Papandrea argues that Logos Christology is a balanced position, and he implies that it lacks the deficiencies of the other four Christologies.
Here are some thoughts about this book:
A. While Papandrea embraces Logos Christology, he empathetically and clearly explains what was at stake for the adherents of the five positions. He could be repetitive, but some readers can use repetition, or at least reminders. The book is lucid. It may be appropriate for undergraduates, albeit undergraduates who have learned basics about the New Testament and early Christianity.
B. Papandrea distinguishes between paganism and Judaism, particularly on issues pertaining to monotheism and divinity. While that distinction may have some validity, there may have been cases in which paganism and Judaism overlapped, even on these issues. Papandrea demonstrates awareness of this possibility, for he does mention Jewish ideas about the logos and wisdom. The reason that this issue is significant is that some scholars have argued that Gnosticism may have been a Jewish phenomenon, or may have existed within Judaism, whereas Papandrea appears to treat it as largely Gentile, without really engaging contrary scholarly perspectives.
C. Is Papandrea correct that Logos Christology is the position of the New Testament? On the one hand, Papandrea asserts this, without really demonstrating it. Granted, something like Logos Christology exists in the Gospel of John and in Paul’s writings, but what about the New Testament writings that do not explicitly depict Jesus as pre-existing, or the passages that may imply that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection? Papandrea in one place disputes that the Gospel of Mark has Adoptionism, but he does not really offer support for his position. On the other hand, Papandrea does well to argue, or to refer to the possibility, that some of the New Testament writings (i.e., I John, Hebrews) actually argue against non-Logos Christologies.
While there may be some forms of Adoptionism in New Testament writings, the New Testament appears to differ, overall, from the second century positions of Angel Adoptionism and Spirit Adoptionism, for the New Testament presents Jesus Christ as suffering and rising again. That may add support to Papandrea’s view that Angel Adoptionism and Spirit Adoptionism were stray positions, untrue to the mainstream. (Robert M. Price has a different view, however, contending that there are traces of docetism in the New Testament, and even traces of the view that Jesus did not even die.)
D. Papandrea argues that the second century church fathers regarded Jesus as God, and as eternally existing. Bart Ehrman seems to present a different picture in How Jesus Became God, but, even in Papandrea’s book, there are some indications that things may be more complex than Papandrea’s narrative would imply. On page 100, Papandrea states that “all of the apologists and theologians before Novatian had assumed that the ‘begetting’ (or generation) of the Son from the Father was an event that took place at some point in eternity before creation.” Specifically, the view was that the Son existed as a thought in the mind of the Father, until the Father spoke the Son as a word, thereby begetting the Son. Papandrea still believes that these theologians and apologists regarded the Son as eternal, for he says that they believed that the Son had eternally existed prior to his being begotten, but he existed in the Father’s mind. On page 120, however, Papandrea says that Theophilus of Antioch (second century) believed that the Son was a thought in the Father’s mind until he was begotten, and that his successors concluded from this that the Son did not actually exist prior to the time that he was begotten: that the Son had not always existed, but rather came into existence at a certain point. Should not this cast at least some question on the notion that the apologists and theologians before Novatian necessarily assumed that the Son had eternally existed, prior to his being begotten?
E. One may think that I am saying that Papandrea retrojects Nicene Christology onto the New Testament and second century C.E. Christianity. That would not be entirely accurate, though. Papandrea acknowledges some messiness: he notes that there were second century Christians who tended to conflate Christ with the Holy Spirit, for example. Papandrea also discusses the Christology of the Shepherd of Hermas, in his chapter on Angel Adoptionism. The Shepherd of Hermas did enjoy some popularity within early Christianity (though it also had it critics), and one may inquire if that casts some question on, or at least should qualify, Papandrea’s overall picture: of the apostles holding and passing down some “orthodox” position (however rudimentary), which became mainstream, and some teachers strayed from that.
F. Was Logos Christology the mainstream, majority position in the second century C.E., or at least the position held by most bishops and theologians, as Papandrea states on page 85, referring to Tertullian’s Prescription Against Heretics 1? There may be something to Papandrea’s narrative, even though (as I said above) there may be factors that should qualify it. Perhaps there was a majority Christian teaching, and some within the church held that they could uncover esoteric secrets underneath that teaching, secrets that would be accessible to the few. The esotericism of Gnosticism may go against it being the majority position. Still, did that majority position advocate a particular Christology?
G. A question that I had in reading this book: if Logos Christology was so perfect and covered all of the bases, addressing the inadequacies of the other positions, and Logos Christology came first, then how did those other Christologies even arise? Were they raising concerns that had already been successfully answered? Papandrea may say that Logos Christology existed prior to the other positions, but in a rudimentary form, and it was primarily in contrast with the other positions that its implications became clearer. Or perhaps one could say that Logos Christology existed first, but people still found it to be unsatisfactory: some still had a problem with God becoming flesh, or with a man being divine, so they developed alternative Christologies.
H. An interesting feature of Papandrea’s book is that it discussed how some of the non-Logos Christologies changed in response to developments. When John 1 became more accepted, for example, people who denied Jesus’ pre-existence had to deal with that, since John 1 presents Jesus as pre-existent. Some of them went the route of saying that Christ in John 1 pre-existed in the Father’s mind as a plan, but not as an actual person.
I. I have read books that cover the Arian controversy, but, from this book, I learned that there may have been Adoptionist aspects to Arian’s thought.
J. Although, in this review, I have criticized Papandrea for not always supporting his points, there were many instances in which he did. For instance, against scholars who question whether Gnosticism had both ascetic and hedonistic tendencies, Papandrea offered a compelling defense that it did. Papandrea also discussed the significance of that within the historical and cultural context.
This book is slender, but it has a lot of information.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
James L. Papandrea teaches church history at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, which is at Northwestern University. Papandrea has a Ph.D. from Northwestern University.
The Earliest Christologies is about the different beliefs about Jesus and Christ after the time of the apostles. The book focuses on the second century C.E., but it also refers to issues and personalities from the third-fourth centuries C.E., and occasionally to the New Testament.
Papandrea discusses five Christologies. First, there was Angel Adoptionism. Angel Adoptionism maintained that an angel inhabited and empowered the man Jesus at Jesus’ conception. This form of Adoptionism tended to accept the virgin birth of Jesus.
Second, there was Spirit Adoptionism. Spirit Adoptionism held that the Holy Spirit anointed Jesus at Jesus’ baptism. This form of Adoptionism tended to reject the virgin birth.
Both forms of Adoptionism differentiated between the man Jesus and the spiritual “Christ” who empowered him, meaning that they did not regard Jesus as divine. They thought that the supernatural empowered Jesus as a reward for Jesus’ piety and obedience to God’s law: Angel Adoptionism believed that God foresaw Jesus’ obedience and rewarded him at conception, whereas Spirit Adoptionism held that God rewarded Jesus later in Jesus’ life, at his baptism. According to Papandrea, Adoptionism was primarily accepted by Jewish Christians, who were monotheistic and upheld obedience towards the Torah.
Whereas the Adoptionisms treated Jesus as a mere man who was empowered by the divine, the third and the fourth Christologies that Papandrea discusses went to the other extreme: they maintained that Jesus was fully divine, not human. Docetic Gnosticism held that Jesus was a phantom, one who only appeared human but actually was not. Hybrid Gnosticism, however, thought that Jesus had a body, albeit an ethereal one rather than a human one. Both of these Christologies believed that Jesus pre-existed his coming to earth and was a deity who had an origin from other deities. Whereas Adoptionism believed in one God and recoiled from any idea that a god could be created, which were possible reasons that it was embraced by Jewish Christians, the Gnosticisms thought that gods could be created; thus, the Gnosticisms were more consistent with paganism. Papandrea also discusses the ethical implications of the Gnosticisms, as some Gnostics took their contempt for the flesh in a hedonistic direction (have fun, for the flesh does not matter, anyway!), and other Gnostics suppressed the flesh through asceticism.
According to Papandrea, these four Christologies largely rejected the idea the Christ suffered. Both Adoptionisms maintained that the spiritual “Christ” left the man Jesus before Jesus died. Although there were some Hybrid Gnosticisms that accepted that Christ suffered, many thought that Christ shed his body and escaped suffering. Papandrea also states that these four Christologies largely rejected the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The fifth Christology that Papandrea discusses is the one that most Christians today embrace: Logos Christology. According to this view, Jesus pre-existed his coming to earth and was the divine Logos, the son of God the Father. God the Logos became incarnate in Jesus, who was fully human and fully divine during his lifetime, and who remained so even after his resurrection. For Papandrea, this position was the position of the apostles, and it was the majority, mainstream position in second century Christianity. At the same time, Papandrea acknowledges that it became refined and crystallized through its encounter with alternative positions. Papandrea argues that Logos Christology is a balanced position, and he implies that it lacks the deficiencies of the other four Christologies.
Here are some thoughts about this book:
A. While Papandrea embraces Logos Christology, he empathetically and clearly explains what was at stake for the adherents of the five positions. He could be repetitive, but some readers can use repetition, or at least reminders. The book is lucid. It may be appropriate for undergraduates, albeit undergraduates who have learned basics about the New Testament and early Christianity.
B. Papandrea distinguishes between paganism and Judaism, particularly on issues pertaining to monotheism and divinity. While that distinction may have some validity, there may have been cases in which paganism and Judaism overlapped, even on these issues. Papandrea demonstrates awareness of this possibility, for he does mention Jewish ideas about the logos and wisdom. The reason that this issue is significant is that some scholars have argued that Gnosticism may have been a Jewish phenomenon, or may have existed within Judaism, whereas Papandrea appears to treat it as largely Gentile, without really engaging contrary scholarly perspectives.
C. Is Papandrea correct that Logos Christology is the position of the New Testament? On the one hand, Papandrea asserts this, without really demonstrating it. Granted, something like Logos Christology exists in the Gospel of John and in Paul’s writings, but what about the New Testament writings that do not explicitly depict Jesus as pre-existing, or the passages that may imply that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection? Papandrea in one place disputes that the Gospel of Mark has Adoptionism, but he does not really offer support for his position. On the other hand, Papandrea does well to argue, or to refer to the possibility, that some of the New Testament writings (i.e., I John, Hebrews) actually argue against non-Logos Christologies.
While there may be some forms of Adoptionism in New Testament writings, the New Testament appears to differ, overall, from the second century positions of Angel Adoptionism and Spirit Adoptionism, for the New Testament presents Jesus Christ as suffering and rising again. That may add support to Papandrea’s view that Angel Adoptionism and Spirit Adoptionism were stray positions, untrue to the mainstream. (Robert M. Price has a different view, however, contending that there are traces of docetism in the New Testament, and even traces of the view that Jesus did not even die.)
D. Papandrea argues that the second century church fathers regarded Jesus as God, and as eternally existing. Bart Ehrman seems to present a different picture in How Jesus Became God, but, even in Papandrea’s book, there are some indications that things may be more complex than Papandrea’s narrative would imply. On page 100, Papandrea states that “all of the apologists and theologians before Novatian had assumed that the ‘begetting’ (or generation) of the Son from the Father was an event that took place at some point in eternity before creation.” Specifically, the view was that the Son existed as a thought in the mind of the Father, until the Father spoke the Son as a word, thereby begetting the Son. Papandrea still believes that these theologians and apologists regarded the Son as eternal, for he says that they believed that the Son had eternally existed prior to his being begotten, but he existed in the Father’s mind. On page 120, however, Papandrea says that Theophilus of Antioch (second century) believed that the Son was a thought in the Father’s mind until he was begotten, and that his successors concluded from this that the Son did not actually exist prior to the time that he was begotten: that the Son had not always existed, but rather came into existence at a certain point. Should not this cast at least some question on the notion that the apologists and theologians before Novatian necessarily assumed that the Son had eternally existed, prior to his being begotten?
E. One may think that I am saying that Papandrea retrojects Nicene Christology onto the New Testament and second century C.E. Christianity. That would not be entirely accurate, though. Papandrea acknowledges some messiness: he notes that there were second century Christians who tended to conflate Christ with the Holy Spirit, for example. Papandrea also discusses the Christology of the Shepherd of Hermas, in his chapter on Angel Adoptionism. The Shepherd of Hermas did enjoy some popularity within early Christianity (though it also had it critics), and one may inquire if that casts some question on, or at least should qualify, Papandrea’s overall picture: of the apostles holding and passing down some “orthodox” position (however rudimentary), which became mainstream, and some teachers strayed from that.
F. Was Logos Christology the mainstream, majority position in the second century C.E., or at least the position held by most bishops and theologians, as Papandrea states on page 85, referring to Tertullian’s Prescription Against Heretics 1? There may be something to Papandrea’s narrative, even though (as I said above) there may be factors that should qualify it. Perhaps there was a majority Christian teaching, and some within the church held that they could uncover esoteric secrets underneath that teaching, secrets that would be accessible to the few. The esotericism of Gnosticism may go against it being the majority position. Still, did that majority position advocate a particular Christology?
G. A question that I had in reading this book: if Logos Christology was so perfect and covered all of the bases, addressing the inadequacies of the other positions, and Logos Christology came first, then how did those other Christologies even arise? Were they raising concerns that had already been successfully answered? Papandrea may say that Logos Christology existed prior to the other positions, but in a rudimentary form, and it was primarily in contrast with the other positions that its implications became clearer. Or perhaps one could say that Logos Christology existed first, but people still found it to be unsatisfactory: some still had a problem with God becoming flesh, or with a man being divine, so they developed alternative Christologies.
H. An interesting feature of Papandrea’s book is that it discussed how some of the non-Logos Christologies changed in response to developments. When John 1 became more accepted, for example, people who denied Jesus’ pre-existence had to deal with that, since John 1 presents Jesus as pre-existent. Some of them went the route of saying that Christ in John 1 pre-existed in the Father’s mind as a plan, but not as an actual person.
I. I have read books that cover the Arian controversy, but, from this book, I learned that there may have been Adoptionist aspects to Arian’s thought.
J. Although, in this review, I have criticized Papandrea for not always supporting his points, there were many instances in which he did. For instance, against scholars who question whether Gnosticism had both ascetic and hedonistic tendencies, Papandrea offered a compelling defense that it did. Papandrea also discussed the significance of that within the historical and cultural context.
This book is slender, but it has a lot of information.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Saturday, September 3, 2016
Book Write-Up: Home, by Elyse Fitzpatrick
Elyse Fitzpatrick. Home: How Heaven and the New Earth Satisfy Our Deepest Longings. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Elyse Fitzpatrick holds degrees in biblical counseling: one is a certificate from the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation, and the other is an M.A. from Trinity Theological Seminary. She has spoken at conferences and has written 22 books.
As the title indicates, her book Home: How Heaven and the New Earth Satisfy Our Deepest Longings discusses the new earth, the paradise into which God will transform the earth after Christ’s return.
There are a lot of things that Fitzpatrick says that Christians have heard before, or even thought to themselves. Many of us notice how ephemeral life is and desire permanence, or we look at the physical and mental limitations that come with age and wish for a different reality. Suffering in this life can easily encourage people to hope for a better afterlife. And believers who work hard for the Lord, sometimes at great inconvenience to themselves, may desire a reward. Fitzpatrick addresses these longings, with her own stories and illustrations.
Fitzpatrick portrays the new earth for Christians as a place of acceptance rather than loneliness; a place where believers shine, work, and rest; and a place where they will be in the presence of God. She refers to such authors as C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, but she also interacts with Scripture. She muses about the river that becomes deeper and deeper in Ezekiel 47, discussing (among other things) how that would have appealed to the desire for a regular water supply in that time. She talks about the city from heaven in Revelation 21 and its size.
The book had its advantages, but also things that I wish it had addressed.
Here are what I see as its advantages:
A. The book is beautifully written, thoughtful, thought-provoking, and honest. While some of its primary insights may not be new to believers, reading the book can be an act of worship, providing them with an opportunity to appreciate, with a fellow pilgrim, the destiny that God has for them.
B. Fitzpatrick argues that the hope of the believer is, not so much heaven, but rather a new earth where God will dwell. Nowadays, that is the “in” thing for Christian writers to say: N.T. Wright said it, and a bunch of other Christian books have said it since then. Reading Fitzpatrick, in conjunction with an August 30, 2016 post by Russell Moore (President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission at the Southern Baptist Convention), helped me to appreciate the concept better. Russell Moore said that he supports protecting the environment because “The physical creation…is to be, like our bodies, ultimately a temple of the Holy spirit and a dwelling place for the reigning Christ Jesus.” Fitzpatrick’s discussion of this issue and Moore’s insights reinforced each other, in my mind. Fitzpatrick also did well to offer a reason that the renewal of the earth is important: because God will not allow Satan to have the last word by defiling the earth that God created, and in which God has invested.
C. Coinciding with (B.), a number of Christians say that we should work for social justice and the environment now because God cares about the earth, enough to renew it at Christ’s second coming. A question that may occur to some people is why Christians should care about the earth now, when Christ will come back, destroy it, and recreate it anyway, a la II Peter 3:10. An asset to Fitzpatrick’s book is that she wrestles with this question. She questions whether II Peter 3:10 depicts a complete destruction of the earth, positing instead that it envisions a “reshaping or renewing of what already exists” (page 128). She observes that II Peter 3:6 uses “‘destruction’ language” about the Flood during the time of Noah, but she states that this flood “temporarily cleansed” the earth as opposed to destroying it. Elsewhere in the book (page 202), she appeals to II Peter 3:11-14 and Acts 3:19-21 to argue that Christians, through good deeds, can actually hasten the second coming of Christ.
D. Fitzpatrick’s discussion of the presence of God throughout history was illuminating. As she notes, in the Old Testament, there was a strict protocol about approaching God, with the Tabernacle and the Temple. Sins and human limitations had something to do with this, but, even after Jesus came and died for our sins, we cannot, in our present form, be in the immediate presence of God, for we would die. But that will change in the new earth, when God will dwell with people. One can perhaps inquire whether such a perspective limits God, but it is a hope that the Bible depicts.
E. Near the beginning of the book, Fitzpatrick had a beautiful discussion about how reading can address one’s loneliness: one’s desire to reach out to people, to understand, and to be understood.
F. Fitzpatrick refers to hurt and brokenness that occurs in churches, without going into much detail. At the same time, she presents reasons to go to church: to meet God, and to have opportunities to serve others (since God does not need our service, but others do). Her discussion perhaps could have been more detailed, but it was empathetic, and it did promote what I believe is a healthy attitude towards church.
Here are some areas of critique:
A. Fitzpatrick envisions the new earth as a place in which learning will occur: she will be able to take a class taught by C.S. Lewis, for example, and get to learn at her own pace. That is an appealing image, especially to people who love reading and learning, and realize that there is so, so much to read and to learn! How would Fitzpatrick reconcile that, however, with I Corinthians 13:8, which says that the gift of knowledge will pass away (since people will know God, in God’s presence), whereas love will remain? Does I Corinthians 13:8 that there will be no need for teachers and learning because people will know God perfectly, or does it mean something else?
B. Fitzpatrick refers to biblical passages about believers reigning with Christ. Revelation 2:26, for instance, promises power over the nations to those who overcome and persevere in Christ’s works. Over whom will believers reign, if believers will be the only people on this new earth? Fitzpatrick does not really address this. On page 214, she refers to this, and other works that believers will do in the new earth and benefits that they will receive, and she states, “I don’t know what that means, but it sounds amazing, doesn’t it?” She could have wrestled with this, some more. A number of premillennialists say, for instance, that believers will rule the children and grandchildren of the Tribulation Saints during the millennium, some of whom will be non-believers. Fitzpatrick perhaps could have mentioned that perspective, since she is familiar with debates about whether certain prophecies concern the millennium or the new heavens and the new earth (which is after the millennium).
One can ask about other issues as well: what will be the role of physical Israel in the new heavens and the new earth, since some of the prophecies to which Fitzpatrick refers concern the restoration of Israel? Fitzpatrick did speculate about issues, at times; for instance, in an endnote, she talked about whether believers will be vegetarians in the new earth. But she did not speculate often, probably because she preferred to focus on the hope of the believer. Her book was inspiring, but perhaps more speculation about issues would have made it more interesting, as interesting as it already was!
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Elyse Fitzpatrick holds degrees in biblical counseling: one is a certificate from the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation, and the other is an M.A. from Trinity Theological Seminary. She has spoken at conferences and has written 22 books.
As the title indicates, her book Home: How Heaven and the New Earth Satisfy Our Deepest Longings discusses the new earth, the paradise into which God will transform the earth after Christ’s return.
There are a lot of things that Fitzpatrick says that Christians have heard before, or even thought to themselves. Many of us notice how ephemeral life is and desire permanence, or we look at the physical and mental limitations that come with age and wish for a different reality. Suffering in this life can easily encourage people to hope for a better afterlife. And believers who work hard for the Lord, sometimes at great inconvenience to themselves, may desire a reward. Fitzpatrick addresses these longings, with her own stories and illustrations.
Fitzpatrick portrays the new earth for Christians as a place of acceptance rather than loneliness; a place where believers shine, work, and rest; and a place where they will be in the presence of God. She refers to such authors as C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, but she also interacts with Scripture. She muses about the river that becomes deeper and deeper in Ezekiel 47, discussing (among other things) how that would have appealed to the desire for a regular water supply in that time. She talks about the city from heaven in Revelation 21 and its size.
The book had its advantages, but also things that I wish it had addressed.
Here are what I see as its advantages:
A. The book is beautifully written, thoughtful, thought-provoking, and honest. While some of its primary insights may not be new to believers, reading the book can be an act of worship, providing them with an opportunity to appreciate, with a fellow pilgrim, the destiny that God has for them.
B. Fitzpatrick argues that the hope of the believer is, not so much heaven, but rather a new earth where God will dwell. Nowadays, that is the “in” thing for Christian writers to say: N.T. Wright said it, and a bunch of other Christian books have said it since then. Reading Fitzpatrick, in conjunction with an August 30, 2016 post by Russell Moore (President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission at the Southern Baptist Convention), helped me to appreciate the concept better. Russell Moore said that he supports protecting the environment because “The physical creation…is to be, like our bodies, ultimately a temple of the Holy spirit and a dwelling place for the reigning Christ Jesus.” Fitzpatrick’s discussion of this issue and Moore’s insights reinforced each other, in my mind. Fitzpatrick also did well to offer a reason that the renewal of the earth is important: because God will not allow Satan to have the last word by defiling the earth that God created, and in which God has invested.
C. Coinciding with (B.), a number of Christians say that we should work for social justice and the environment now because God cares about the earth, enough to renew it at Christ’s second coming. A question that may occur to some people is why Christians should care about the earth now, when Christ will come back, destroy it, and recreate it anyway, a la II Peter 3:10. An asset to Fitzpatrick’s book is that she wrestles with this question. She questions whether II Peter 3:10 depicts a complete destruction of the earth, positing instead that it envisions a “reshaping or renewing of what already exists” (page 128). She observes that II Peter 3:6 uses “‘destruction’ language” about the Flood during the time of Noah, but she states that this flood “temporarily cleansed” the earth as opposed to destroying it. Elsewhere in the book (page 202), she appeals to II Peter 3:11-14 and Acts 3:19-21 to argue that Christians, through good deeds, can actually hasten the second coming of Christ.
D. Fitzpatrick’s discussion of the presence of God throughout history was illuminating. As she notes, in the Old Testament, there was a strict protocol about approaching God, with the Tabernacle and the Temple. Sins and human limitations had something to do with this, but, even after Jesus came and died for our sins, we cannot, in our present form, be in the immediate presence of God, for we would die. But that will change in the new earth, when God will dwell with people. One can perhaps inquire whether such a perspective limits God, but it is a hope that the Bible depicts.
E. Near the beginning of the book, Fitzpatrick had a beautiful discussion about how reading can address one’s loneliness: one’s desire to reach out to people, to understand, and to be understood.
F. Fitzpatrick refers to hurt and brokenness that occurs in churches, without going into much detail. At the same time, she presents reasons to go to church: to meet God, and to have opportunities to serve others (since God does not need our service, but others do). Her discussion perhaps could have been more detailed, but it was empathetic, and it did promote what I believe is a healthy attitude towards church.
Here are some areas of critique:
A. Fitzpatrick envisions the new earth as a place in which learning will occur: she will be able to take a class taught by C.S. Lewis, for example, and get to learn at her own pace. That is an appealing image, especially to people who love reading and learning, and realize that there is so, so much to read and to learn! How would Fitzpatrick reconcile that, however, with I Corinthians 13:8, which says that the gift of knowledge will pass away (since people will know God, in God’s presence), whereas love will remain? Does I Corinthians 13:8 that there will be no need for teachers and learning because people will know God perfectly, or does it mean something else?
B. Fitzpatrick refers to biblical passages about believers reigning with Christ. Revelation 2:26, for instance, promises power over the nations to those who overcome and persevere in Christ’s works. Over whom will believers reign, if believers will be the only people on this new earth? Fitzpatrick does not really address this. On page 214, she refers to this, and other works that believers will do in the new earth and benefits that they will receive, and she states, “I don’t know what that means, but it sounds amazing, doesn’t it?” She could have wrestled with this, some more. A number of premillennialists say, for instance, that believers will rule the children and grandchildren of the Tribulation Saints during the millennium, some of whom will be non-believers. Fitzpatrick perhaps could have mentioned that perspective, since she is familiar with debates about whether certain prophecies concern the millennium or the new heavens and the new earth (which is after the millennium).
One can ask about other issues as well: what will be the role of physical Israel in the new heavens and the new earth, since some of the prophecies to which Fitzpatrick refers concern the restoration of Israel? Fitzpatrick did speculate about issues, at times; for instance, in an endnote, she talked about whether believers will be vegetarians in the new earth. But she did not speculate often, probably because she preferred to focus on the hope of the believer. Her book was inspiring, but perhaps more speculation about issues would have made it more interesting, as interesting as it already was!
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Book Write-Up: Good and Angry, by David Powlison
David Powlison. Good and Angry: Redeeming Anger, Irritation, Complaining, and Bitterness. Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
David Powlison is the executive director of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation, and he edits the Journal of Biblical Counseling. He has an M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary and a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania.
As the title of the book indicates, Powlison addresses the topic of anger in Good and Angry: Redeeming Anger, Irritation, Complaining, and Bitterness. Part of his agenda is to encourage people to use their anger in constructive ways, especially when that anger is directed towards injustice. Powlison talks about the importance of confronting people who have made us justly angry, in order to persuade them tactfully not to hurt others.
But Powlison also offers strategies on how to deal with anger that arises from things simply not going as we wish. For Powlison, recognizing and identifying the roots of our anger, placing our desires in a proper perspective, and appreciating God’s mercy, sovereignty, and benevolence are all strategies for alleviating anger. Powlison believes that prayer is significant in this process.
Another issue that is discussed in the book is whether anger at God is justified. Powlison criticizes ranting against God or forgiving God, for Powlison regards God as righteous, and human beings as flawed. Powlison disagrees with those who claim that the Psalms justify ranting against God, for he maintains that they indicate a desire for God’s righteous intervention and presence, not an anti-God attitude.
Powlison includes anecdotes in this book. He is honest about his own shortcomings and describes his own experiences with anger. He refers to people he has known who were angry: one story that comes to mind is the one about the lady who was angry about things that occurred a long time ago, and they were still fresh in her mind, as if they had occurred yesterday! Powlison also draws from books that he has read, both fiction and non-fiction.
The Bible looms large in Powlison’s book, as he finds helpful biblical insights about anger and how to deal with it.
In terms of the book’s positives, the author’s honesty gave his discussion credibility. Powlison is talking about an issue with which he has struggled, and he is offering insights for others who struggle. The anecdotes were helpful. And the book manifested an tone of acceptance towards where people were. Powlison encouraged readers to identify BWAs—-“But what about”s—-which are areas in which they disagreed with the author, or wondered if or how his discussion would address certain issues.
Powlison also offered a specific way to cope with anger in a scenario: you are caught up in unexpected traffic and will be late for your doctor’s appointment, your business meeting, or lunch with an estranged friend. How can you cope in that situation? Powlison provides questions to ask that deal with identifying insecurities and reflecting on the consequences of anger. Psalm 23 plays a significant role in his advice, as does showing concern for others.
As one who struggles socially, Powlison’s discussion about people who are angry because they lack social skills resonated with me: Powlison said that it is not a sin to lack wit! He encouraged people to care more about God’s opinion of them than their own or other people’s opinion. There may be wisdom to that. At the same time, there are people who can read the Bible and feel condemned by it. There are also Christians who accuse introverted people of lacking love, and that can negatively shape an introverted person’s view of what God thinks about him or her!
In terms of the book’s negatives, the book could have been more specific about how to do interpersonal confrontation. Powlison should have provided scenarios about how to confront someone in a tactful, humble manner. Powlison also appeared rather critical of attempting to insulate oneself from anger through distance, or by watching television. In my opinion, distraction can be a useful way to get one’s mind off of the things that make one angry! And, as far as Scripture was concerned, the book perhaps would have been better had it wrestled with Jesus’ statements about God not forgiving us if we do not forgive others.
Overall, though, the book offers wisdom. Powlison writes from a Christian perspective, but a lot of what he says reminds me of Buddhism, or the twelve steps of twelve-step groups. Like Buddhism, Powlison recognizes the role of our desires in making us unhappy. And the fourth step encourages those in recovery to make a list of people towards whom one is bitter, and to identify what exactly those people threatened: one’s self-esteem, livelihood, security, etc.? Many people have been helped by twelve step programs, and that is something that, in my mind, gives Powlison’s advice credence: that similar advice has worked.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through Cross Focused Reviews, in exchange for an honest review.
David Powlison is the executive director of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation, and he edits the Journal of Biblical Counseling. He has an M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary and a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania.
As the title of the book indicates, Powlison addresses the topic of anger in Good and Angry: Redeeming Anger, Irritation, Complaining, and Bitterness. Part of his agenda is to encourage people to use their anger in constructive ways, especially when that anger is directed towards injustice. Powlison talks about the importance of confronting people who have made us justly angry, in order to persuade them tactfully not to hurt others.
But Powlison also offers strategies on how to deal with anger that arises from things simply not going as we wish. For Powlison, recognizing and identifying the roots of our anger, placing our desires in a proper perspective, and appreciating God’s mercy, sovereignty, and benevolence are all strategies for alleviating anger. Powlison believes that prayer is significant in this process.
Another issue that is discussed in the book is whether anger at God is justified. Powlison criticizes ranting against God or forgiving God, for Powlison regards God as righteous, and human beings as flawed. Powlison disagrees with those who claim that the Psalms justify ranting against God, for he maintains that they indicate a desire for God’s righteous intervention and presence, not an anti-God attitude.
Powlison includes anecdotes in this book. He is honest about his own shortcomings and describes his own experiences with anger. He refers to people he has known who were angry: one story that comes to mind is the one about the lady who was angry about things that occurred a long time ago, and they were still fresh in her mind, as if they had occurred yesterday! Powlison also draws from books that he has read, both fiction and non-fiction.
The Bible looms large in Powlison’s book, as he finds helpful biblical insights about anger and how to deal with it.
In terms of the book’s positives, the author’s honesty gave his discussion credibility. Powlison is talking about an issue with which he has struggled, and he is offering insights for others who struggle. The anecdotes were helpful. And the book manifested an tone of acceptance towards where people were. Powlison encouraged readers to identify BWAs—-“But what about”s—-which are areas in which they disagreed with the author, or wondered if or how his discussion would address certain issues.
Powlison also offered a specific way to cope with anger in a scenario: you are caught up in unexpected traffic and will be late for your doctor’s appointment, your business meeting, or lunch with an estranged friend. How can you cope in that situation? Powlison provides questions to ask that deal with identifying insecurities and reflecting on the consequences of anger. Psalm 23 plays a significant role in his advice, as does showing concern for others.
As one who struggles socially, Powlison’s discussion about people who are angry because they lack social skills resonated with me: Powlison said that it is not a sin to lack wit! He encouraged people to care more about God’s opinion of them than their own or other people’s opinion. There may be wisdom to that. At the same time, there are people who can read the Bible and feel condemned by it. There are also Christians who accuse introverted people of lacking love, and that can negatively shape an introverted person’s view of what God thinks about him or her!
In terms of the book’s negatives, the book could have been more specific about how to do interpersonal confrontation. Powlison should have provided scenarios about how to confront someone in a tactful, humble manner. Powlison also appeared rather critical of attempting to insulate oneself from anger through distance, or by watching television. In my opinion, distraction can be a useful way to get one’s mind off of the things that make one angry! And, as far as Scripture was concerned, the book perhaps would have been better had it wrestled with Jesus’ statements about God not forgiving us if we do not forgive others.
Overall, though, the book offers wisdom. Powlison writes from a Christian perspective, but a lot of what he says reminds me of Buddhism, or the twelve steps of twelve-step groups. Like Buddhism, Powlison recognizes the role of our desires in making us unhappy. And the fourth step encourages those in recovery to make a list of people towards whom one is bitter, and to identify what exactly those people threatened: one’s self-esteem, livelihood, security, etc.? Many people have been helped by twelve step programs, and that is something that, in my mind, gives Powlison’s advice credence: that similar advice has worked.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through Cross Focused Reviews, in exchange for an honest review.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
A Reorientation of the Heart
At church last week, the pastor was preaching about James 5:1-6.
In that passage, James criticizes the rich people who hoarded their
wealth, lived in luxury while depriving their workers of pay, and
condemned the just one to death.
The pastor addressed a lot of issues, but I want to focus on one. In the course of his sermon, the pastor was criticizing companies that shipped jobs overseas for the bottom line. The pastor was beginning to sound like Bernie Sanders when he lamented the decline of America’s middle class!
This church is an interesting mix, politically-speaking. Of course, the pastor and the church do not endorse or oppose candidates, but the pastor does voice his opinions about the issues of the day. The church started out as an African-American church, but it became more multi-ethnic over the years; my guess, based on my observation when there, is that more than half of those who attend this particular church are African-American. Plus, the pastor himself is African-American. The church is rather conservative on social and cultural issues, such as school prayer and abortion. This is not too much of a surprise to me. What is more of a surprise to me is that the pastor is critical of the “Black Lives Matters” movement, as he says that “All lives matter.” And last Sunday, and on other Sundays, the pastor criticized companies that ship jobs overseas.
The pastor was saying that, when we go to work on Monday, we should not tell our company that our pastor was criticizing its policies! The pastor said that our greatest weapon is prayer.
I identified with this, but I would like to explain when and why that sort of spiel has turned me off in the past. A lot of times, I have seen Christian conservatives say that we should pray that more people become Christians, and that will take care of the country’s problems, or at least improve the country’s situation. The idea is that, if more people have new and changed hearts, then they will be less prone to commit the sins that harm other people.
My understanding is that this spiel was often used against the social Gospel, or any idea that the government should take a proactive role in tackling poverty. Such a spiel was also used against the Civil Rights movement: you can’t legislate morality from the top down, some Christians said, but we should pray that more people will be converted, and then the different races will get along. Ironically, many Christian conservatives still support using government power when it accords with their own religious, cultural, or moral agenda: on what marriages to recognize, on pornography, or on the promotion of religion in public schools. Sometimes they want to legislate morality, and sometimes they do not.
This spiel has been abused, and yet there is some wisdom and merit to it, which is not to endorse all of the baggage that has accompanied this sentiment throughout history. Legislation or decrees from the top down are not sufficient to tackle the country’s problems. That is not to say that legislation or just enforcement of the law should not exist. But it is to say that, as long as greed is a paramount factor in the decisions that people make, legislation will not cut it. Health insurance companies will leave the Obamacare exchanges. Corporations will pass on higher taxes to their consumers, resulting in higher prices.
What I believe I should pray is that people will become less greedy, that people will have a social conscience and concern for other people rather than thinking solely about their profits, and that they will repent over the damage that they are doing. Does this entail praying that they will become Christians? Well, perhaps a changed heart would be an asset. A heart that is more like Christ will coincide with love of neighbor, concern for the poor, and trust in God, which may obviate whatever feelings of financial insecurity drive their greed.
But I am less-than-optimistic that them becoming Christians will necessarily make them less greedy or increase their social conscience, for there are plenty of Christians who compartmentalize their religion, or whose religion does not lead them to be less greedy. Churches and religious people have managed to co-exist with societies that have massive problems, and there have been many times when they have ignored or even perpetuated these problems.
I will pray that people will have changed hearts in this area, either flowing from a Christian commitment or from good moral sense, or even a practical recognition that the current path is unsustainable. In praying, I am assuming that God can bring this about, that God can enlighten people by changing their heart through God’s Spirit, or through experiences. A re-orientation within people’s hearts is important for things to improve in this country.
The pastor addressed a lot of issues, but I want to focus on one. In the course of his sermon, the pastor was criticizing companies that shipped jobs overseas for the bottom line. The pastor was beginning to sound like Bernie Sanders when he lamented the decline of America’s middle class!
This church is an interesting mix, politically-speaking. Of course, the pastor and the church do not endorse or oppose candidates, but the pastor does voice his opinions about the issues of the day. The church started out as an African-American church, but it became more multi-ethnic over the years; my guess, based on my observation when there, is that more than half of those who attend this particular church are African-American. Plus, the pastor himself is African-American. The church is rather conservative on social and cultural issues, such as school prayer and abortion. This is not too much of a surprise to me. What is more of a surprise to me is that the pastor is critical of the “Black Lives Matters” movement, as he says that “All lives matter.” And last Sunday, and on other Sundays, the pastor criticized companies that ship jobs overseas.
The pastor was saying that, when we go to work on Monday, we should not tell our company that our pastor was criticizing its policies! The pastor said that our greatest weapon is prayer.
I identified with this, but I would like to explain when and why that sort of spiel has turned me off in the past. A lot of times, I have seen Christian conservatives say that we should pray that more people become Christians, and that will take care of the country’s problems, or at least improve the country’s situation. The idea is that, if more people have new and changed hearts, then they will be less prone to commit the sins that harm other people.
My understanding is that this spiel was often used against the social Gospel, or any idea that the government should take a proactive role in tackling poverty. Such a spiel was also used against the Civil Rights movement: you can’t legislate morality from the top down, some Christians said, but we should pray that more people will be converted, and then the different races will get along. Ironically, many Christian conservatives still support using government power when it accords with their own religious, cultural, or moral agenda: on what marriages to recognize, on pornography, or on the promotion of religion in public schools. Sometimes they want to legislate morality, and sometimes they do not.
This spiel has been abused, and yet there is some wisdom and merit to it, which is not to endorse all of the baggage that has accompanied this sentiment throughout history. Legislation or decrees from the top down are not sufficient to tackle the country’s problems. That is not to say that legislation or just enforcement of the law should not exist. But it is to say that, as long as greed is a paramount factor in the decisions that people make, legislation will not cut it. Health insurance companies will leave the Obamacare exchanges. Corporations will pass on higher taxes to their consumers, resulting in higher prices.
What I believe I should pray is that people will become less greedy, that people will have a social conscience and concern for other people rather than thinking solely about their profits, and that they will repent over the damage that they are doing. Does this entail praying that they will become Christians? Well, perhaps a changed heart would be an asset. A heart that is more like Christ will coincide with love of neighbor, concern for the poor, and trust in God, which may obviate whatever feelings of financial insecurity drive their greed.
But I am less-than-optimistic that them becoming Christians will necessarily make them less greedy or increase their social conscience, for there are plenty of Christians who compartmentalize their religion, or whose religion does not lead them to be less greedy. Churches and religious people have managed to co-exist with societies that have massive problems, and there have been many times when they have ignored or even perpetuated these problems.
I will pray that people will have changed hearts in this area, either flowing from a Christian commitment or from good moral sense, or even a practical recognition that the current path is unsustainable. In praying, I am assuming that God can bring this about, that God can enlighten people by changing their heart through God’s Spirit, or through experiences. A re-orientation within people’s hearts is important for things to improve in this country.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Book Write-Up: The Touchpoint, by Bob Santos
Bob Santos. The Touchpoint: Connecting with God Through the Bible. Indiana, PA: Search for Me Ministries, Inc., 2016. See here to purchase the book.
I read and reviewed Bob Santos’ The Divine Progression of Grace over a year ago and found it to be a thoughtful and edifying book. When I learned about Santos’ new book, The Touchpoint, I wanted to read it.
The Touchpoint is essentially about the Bible. Why is the Bible important for the Christian life? How can believers have confidence that the Bible is credible? How can Christians read and study the Bible, and make time to do so? In the course of these discussions, Santos addresses hot-button issues, such as whether the Bible is inerrant, the historicity of the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, and Christian abuses of Scripture.
The things that I liked about The Divine Progression of Grace are the things that I like about The Touchpoint. Santos is honest about his personal and spiritual journey. The Touchpoint seemed to have even more personal anecdotes than The Divine Progression of Grace, and this humanized Santos and enabled him to make a connection with me as a reader. The prose of the book was easy to understand, and yet it was not the sort of book that I could binge read. I read fifty pages a day and let that digest, for the book was rich and weighty. And, overall, Santos attempts to be fair and balanced towards different perspective and to understand people’s struggles and challenges when it comes to making time and effort to study the Bible.
There were passages in the book that I especially appreciated. I could identify with Santos’ statement that he was a good student but that he struggled in making life decisions, and that this was why he relied on God and the Bible. On page 247, Santos said that he has to prove himself in his vocation by working “at speaking with meaning and clarity,” but “when it comes to my personal identity, I don’t need to prove anything to anybody,” for “My ‘work’ is simply to believe.” Santos’ use of the analogy of skin and bones to highlight the roles of objective truth and subjective experience in the Christian life was effective, and his discussion of how the Gospel humbles peoples so that they will have humility in heaven was illuminating.
There was one area in which Santos’ point provoked a new insight within me, even though that new insight may go beyond what Santos intended. I have long been skeptical of Christians who claim that they receive their interpretation of Scripture from the Holy Spirit. In my opinion, such a stance implies that their interpretation has a certitude that it actually lacks. Plus, some of these interpretations contradict each other, so do we want to say that God gives contradictory interpretations of Scripture? Santos himself contends that people should ask God for guidance when reading Scripture, for spiritual truths are spiritually ascertained. At the same time, Santos states that people should ask God to help them see what God wants them to see, to learn what God wants them to learn. That, in my mind, is different from the notion that God gives believers divinely-sanctioned interpretations of Scripture. God can guide people and use the Bible and other media to do so, even if God does not provide people with the final, unassailable interpretation of a biblical verse.
In terms of critiques, Santos at times seemed to contradict himself, sometimes in his attempts to balance out certain perspectives. He proposed that the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 may indicate that the creation accounts were not intended to be scientific, yet later he treats Adam and Eve as historical figures, although many scientists dispute that all of humanity descended from two people who lived six thousand years ago. In one place, Santos said that fulfilled prophecy attests to the truth of the Bible, and he trotted out the usual texts in the Hebrew Bible that many Christians believe predict Jesus. I wondered if Santos was aware that these passages appear to mean something different in their original contexts. He later indicated that he was aware of this issue, for he said that Christians should not necessarily approach the Old Testament as the New Testament authors did. Such contradictions did leave an unevenness in the book; at the same time, Santos may have been attempting to offer food for thought rather than giving the final comprehensive answer to these complex questions.
Overall, the apologetics parts of the book were all right, albeit subject to critique. There was a lot of emphasis in the book on text criticism, but Santos did not really engage Bart Ehrman, who argues that ancient Christians did alter New Testament texts to accord with their religious views. Santos was rather dismissive of higher critics, when their insights demonstrate that there is another side to the story besides what Santos presents. Santos provided an actual argument that the creed in I Corinthians 15:3-7 originated within a decade after the death of Jesus, whereas many apologists simply assert that. Santos’ reference to Sir William Ramsay, who in the nineteenth century converted from being a skeptic about the Book of Acts to accepting its historicity, was intriguing.
In my opinion, Santos’ personal or anecdotal arguments for Christianity were more appealing than his apologetic arguments. Santos contends that people are looking for love, hope, and something to believe in, and he believes that the God of the Bible can meet these needs. Santos also states that he has seen the life-transforming power of God in his own and other people’s lives.
This book is not comprehensive, but it is a Christian man sharing his experiences and insights in studying the Bible. Seeing how another person does this can be helpful.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through Bookcrash, in exchange for an honest review.
I read and reviewed Bob Santos’ The Divine Progression of Grace over a year ago and found it to be a thoughtful and edifying book. When I learned about Santos’ new book, The Touchpoint, I wanted to read it.
The Touchpoint is essentially about the Bible. Why is the Bible important for the Christian life? How can believers have confidence that the Bible is credible? How can Christians read and study the Bible, and make time to do so? In the course of these discussions, Santos addresses hot-button issues, such as whether the Bible is inerrant, the historicity of the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, and Christian abuses of Scripture.
The things that I liked about The Divine Progression of Grace are the things that I like about The Touchpoint. Santos is honest about his personal and spiritual journey. The Touchpoint seemed to have even more personal anecdotes than The Divine Progression of Grace, and this humanized Santos and enabled him to make a connection with me as a reader. The prose of the book was easy to understand, and yet it was not the sort of book that I could binge read. I read fifty pages a day and let that digest, for the book was rich and weighty. And, overall, Santos attempts to be fair and balanced towards different perspective and to understand people’s struggles and challenges when it comes to making time and effort to study the Bible.
There were passages in the book that I especially appreciated. I could identify with Santos’ statement that he was a good student but that he struggled in making life decisions, and that this was why he relied on God and the Bible. On page 247, Santos said that he has to prove himself in his vocation by working “at speaking with meaning and clarity,” but “when it comes to my personal identity, I don’t need to prove anything to anybody,” for “My ‘work’ is simply to believe.” Santos’ use of the analogy of skin and bones to highlight the roles of objective truth and subjective experience in the Christian life was effective, and his discussion of how the Gospel humbles peoples so that they will have humility in heaven was illuminating.
There was one area in which Santos’ point provoked a new insight within me, even though that new insight may go beyond what Santos intended. I have long been skeptical of Christians who claim that they receive their interpretation of Scripture from the Holy Spirit. In my opinion, such a stance implies that their interpretation has a certitude that it actually lacks. Plus, some of these interpretations contradict each other, so do we want to say that God gives contradictory interpretations of Scripture? Santos himself contends that people should ask God for guidance when reading Scripture, for spiritual truths are spiritually ascertained. At the same time, Santos states that people should ask God to help them see what God wants them to see, to learn what God wants them to learn. That, in my mind, is different from the notion that God gives believers divinely-sanctioned interpretations of Scripture. God can guide people and use the Bible and other media to do so, even if God does not provide people with the final, unassailable interpretation of a biblical verse.
In terms of critiques, Santos at times seemed to contradict himself, sometimes in his attempts to balance out certain perspectives. He proposed that the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 may indicate that the creation accounts were not intended to be scientific, yet later he treats Adam and Eve as historical figures, although many scientists dispute that all of humanity descended from two people who lived six thousand years ago. In one place, Santos said that fulfilled prophecy attests to the truth of the Bible, and he trotted out the usual texts in the Hebrew Bible that many Christians believe predict Jesus. I wondered if Santos was aware that these passages appear to mean something different in their original contexts. He later indicated that he was aware of this issue, for he said that Christians should not necessarily approach the Old Testament as the New Testament authors did. Such contradictions did leave an unevenness in the book; at the same time, Santos may have been attempting to offer food for thought rather than giving the final comprehensive answer to these complex questions.
Overall, the apologetics parts of the book were all right, albeit subject to critique. There was a lot of emphasis in the book on text criticism, but Santos did not really engage Bart Ehrman, who argues that ancient Christians did alter New Testament texts to accord with their religious views. Santos was rather dismissive of higher critics, when their insights demonstrate that there is another side to the story besides what Santos presents. Santos provided an actual argument that the creed in I Corinthians 15:3-7 originated within a decade after the death of Jesus, whereas many apologists simply assert that. Santos’ reference to Sir William Ramsay, who in the nineteenth century converted from being a skeptic about the Book of Acts to accepting its historicity, was intriguing.
In my opinion, Santos’ personal or anecdotal arguments for Christianity were more appealing than his apologetic arguments. Santos contends that people are looking for love, hope, and something to believe in, and he believes that the God of the Bible can meet these needs. Santos also states that he has seen the life-transforming power of God in his own and other people’s lives.
This book is not comprehensive, but it is a Christian man sharing his experiences and insights in studying the Bible. Seeing how another person does this can be helpful.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through Bookcrash, in exchange for an honest review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)