Posts
Yvonne Ortega. Moving from Broken to Beautiful through Forgiveness. Salem, OR: Trinity Press International, 2016. See here or here to purchase the book.
According to the “About the Author” page of the book, “Yvonne Ortega
is a Licensed Professional Counselor, a Licensed Substance Abuse
Treatment Practitioner, and a Clinically Certified Domestic Violence
Counselor.”
As the title of the book indicates, Moving from Broken to Beautiful through Forgiveness is about forgiveness. Ortega
shares aspects of her own story, particularly her struggle to forgive
her ex-husband, who abused and disrespected both her and their son. The
book has chapters about what forgiveness is not and offers strategies
that can help a person forgive.
The book has numerous assets. First of all, there is its friendly
and understanding tone. The “About the Author” page states that Ortega
conducts seminars and “retreats for women who wear anything from
designer suits to jumpsuits,” which communicated acceptance and
inclusiveness. In the “Introduction,” Ortega reassures readers that she
will not try to guilt or shame them into doing something that they do
not want to do, and that her goal is not to bind heavy burdens on people
that she herself does not carry. That made me more receptive to what
was was about to say, since she communicated that she understood how
difficult forgiveness can be.
Second, Ortega supports a lot of what she says with Scripture. Other
Christians and therapists have made the points that she makes about
what forgiveness is not: forgiveness is not forgetting the offense,
forgiveness is not trusting the offender, forgiveness does not mean that
the perpetrator gets off scot-free, etc. In my experience, people
often assert these points rather than supporting them. Ortega does well
to offer a reasonable explanation of these points, but she also
demonstrates from Scripture that God does not want us to be gullible or
to place ourselves in dangerous situations. Some Christians may feel
that they should forsake common sense or sensibility in order to obey
the biblical command to forgive, as if they are taking a great leap of
faith in doing so. Ortega successfully shows, however, that common
sense and sensibility accord with Scripture: God favors justice, and God
does not want us to blindly trust people.
Third, Ortega suggests projects in art and music (as in listening to
music) that can encourage one’s journey towards forgiveness. Ortega
appeals to people’s creative side. I consider that a positive, for
people finding ways to reflect or express themselves creatively can make
the journey towards forgiveness enjoyable.
Fourth, each chapter opens with an insightful quote, and the quotes within the chapters themselves enhance the book.
In terms of critiques, I have four.
First of all, the description of the book on Amazon states: “Since we
don’t have alligator skin and a heart of stone, people will hurt us
especially those closest to us. We also make mistakes in life and hurt
others.” That statement is similar to the understanding tone of the
book. Unfortunately, the book did not really explore what that
statement talks about: how we are sensitive and easily hurt in
day-to-day life. The book talked a lot about recovery from personal
trauma (e.g., abuse, affairs), and that is very important. But the book
would have spoken to me more had it also discussed how to endure or
move on from snubs, how to cope with our sensitivity, or how to deal
with our frustrated expectations.
Second, Ortega has a chapter entitled, “Forgiveness Doesn’t Mean You
Forgive the Person Right Away.” Ortega reasonably notes that
forgiveness is often a process for us, for getting over an offense
against us may take time. Even after we have forgiven a person,
something may happen that triggers our pain all over again. Ortega is
aware that there are Scriptures that appear to command the opposite:
Ephesians 4:26 exhorts people not to let the sun go down on their wrath,
which seems to command immediate forgiveness, not forgiveness that is a
process. This chapter would have been better had Ortega attempted to
reconcile Ephesians 4:26 with her belief that forgiveness can be a
process, and also if Ortega had supported from Scripture her proposal
that forgiveness can be a process. In Appendix B, Ortega lists three
Scriptures under this topic, and they are relevant, on some level (i.e.,
II Corinthians 2:5-6 depicts Paul and the Corinthian Christians
recovering from grief after an offense, and Psalm 51:16-17 says that God
will not despise a broken spirit). Still, her point would have been
strengthened had she presented Scriptural examples of people who
struggled to forgive right away, yet were loved and honored by God. A
possible example that comes to my mind is Paul’s long-term journey
towards accepting Mark (Acts 15:37-39; II Timothy 4:11).
Third, Ortega suggests that people write out their resentments and
share that with an accepting friend or counselor. As Ortega most likely
knows, a similar approach is employed within Alcoholics Anonymous, as
recovering alcoholics write out their resentments and share them with a
sponsor. That is a sensible approach, for talking things out with
someone else can help a person feel better. There are many people,
however, who may struggle to find someone with whom they can share their
resentments. They may struggle with forming relationships with people,
or perhaps they cannot think of anyone whom they trust enough to hear
their resentments. The book would have been better had it offered
advice to people in that situation.
Finally, while the book was very specific about what forgiveness is
not, it could have been clearer in defining what forgiveness is. I
cannot be too critical here, for the book, on some level, did present a
picture of forgiveness. Part of it, for Ortega, is not continually
dwelling on offenses. Part of it is forsaking malice. Part of it is
cultivating a peace of mind and moving on with one’s life. Part of it
is having concern for one’s enemy’s well-being. Those are all important
insights, but I think that, somewhere in the book, perhaps in the
beginning or after the chapters about what forgiveness is not, Ortega
should have included a concise paragraph offering a definition of
forgiveness.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Bookcrash. My review is honest!
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Monday, January 9, 2017
Book Write-Up: The Unseen Realm, by Michael S. Heiser
Michael S. Heiser. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015. See here to purchase the book.
Michael S. Heiser has an M.A. in Ancient History (with a focus on ancient Israel and Egyptology) from the University of Pennsylvania, as well as a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which is an academic powerhouse in Hebrew Bible and Semitic studies.
To provide a rough summary of the story that Heiser tells, let’s start with Adam and Eve. According to Heiser, God created Adam and Eve to reproduce and fill the earth with people made in God’s image, extending the influence of God throughout the world (Genesis 1:28). The Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve were to receive revelations from God, was the earthy location of the divine council, God’s council of divine beings that is mentioned in Scripture (i.e., Psalm 82; I Kings 22:19ff.). In the ancient Near East, gods met or dwelt on mountains and in gardens, so Heiser believes that the Garden of Eden was a meeting place for the divine council. Among the divine council was the serpent, who was part of the divine retinue, as serpents were in ancient Near Eastern imagery of gods, and perhaps also in Isaiah 6:2. This serpent rebels against God and tempts Adam and Eve to sin, with the result that the serpent is cast to the underworld, as Heiser reads Genesis 2 in light of the rebellious beings in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.
Years later, after the Flood, human beings have failed to heed God’s desire for them to scatter throughout the earth and spread God’s influence. They want to recapture the access to the divine council that Adam and Eve had, so they attempt to build a tower to the heavens, the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). God scatters the people over the face of the earth by confusing their languages. As God divides up the nations, God assigns each nation to a particular god, who would rule the nation (Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 32:8-9). Israel, however, would belong to God God-self. Other gods try to thwart God’s plan to rule Israel and, in turn, to spread God’s influence throughout the world through Israel. As they did prior to the Flood (Genesis 6), the gods mate with human beings and produce giant offspring, and this offspring inhabits the Promised Land, where God intends the Israelites to dwell. The Israelite Conquest of the Promised Land is about ridding the land of this giant offspring, even though Heiser states that there were many Canaanites who were not giants.
For Heiser, the work of Jesus was about freeing the nations from the rule of the gods, so that God and exalted believers would rule the nations instead. The gods are not eager to relinquish their reign, however, and that is why Christians are in a battle against principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12). The Kingdom of God is already and not yet.
This is the overall picture that Heiser presents, but there are other arguments that Heiser makes, as well. Like a number of Christians, Heiser contends that there are two YHWHs in the Old Testament, one of them being a YHWH who appears to people in a visible form. For Heiser, that particular YHWH is Jesus Christ. Heiser states that, “in some of the oldest manuscripts of Jude (e.g., Alexandrinus and Vaticanus),” Jude 5 states that Jesus led the Israelites out of Egypt at the Exodus (page 270).
Another prominent topic in this book is Bashan and Mount Hermon, in the north. Both were part of Og’s dominion. Og was one of the Rephaim, an offspring of a divine-human union (Deuteronomy 3:13; Joshua 12:5). For Heiser, Bashan was a spiritually evil place. Heiser regards it as a gate to hell, since Ugaritic literature presents Rephaim in the underworld, plus Bashan can mean serpent, and the serpent of Genesis 3 was in the underworld. I Enoch 6:1-6 states that Mount Hermon was where the divine beings of Genesis 6 came when they cohabited with women, producing the giant Nephilim. In Jesus’ time, Mount Hermon was a prominent site of pagan temples, and Heiser argues that Jesus is alluding to it when he states, near that very site, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18). Bashan appears in the context of Scriptural passages that the New Testament quotes (Psalm 22; Psalm 68), and Heiser deems that to be significant. Heiser also maintains that Bashan has eschatological significance, as he interprets eschatological danger from the north in reference to the evil spiritual forces of Bashan. Most interestingly, Heiser speculates that the maligned cows of Bashan in Amos 4:1-2 are not rich women but rather supernatural beings!
Other fascinating topics that Heiser explores: the question of whether the “god of this age” who blinds people in II Corinthians 4:4 is Satan or God; the identity of Armageddon (for Heiser, it is not Megiddo!); why Paul wanted to go to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28), and how Isaiah 66:19 relates to that; themes from the Hebrew Bible that appear in the story of Pentecost (Acts 2); and how the Old Testament foreshadows (and does not foreshadow) Jesus. And there are many more topics that Heiser discusses, not only in the text but also in the in-depth footnotes.
Here are some thoughts:
A. I am slightly unclear about where Heiser believes the demons/gods, specifically the demons/gods who ruled the nations, came to be located. Obviously, these gods started out in heaven, but does Heiser believe that the gods who rule the nations were cast from heaven into hell? Heiser believes that there are evil spirits in hell: the serpent, and the spirits of the giants. But what about the gods who rule the nations? My impression was that, sometimes in this book, these evil spirits got conflated, and that was where my confusion arose.
B. There may be something to Heiser’s arguments about Bashan, in terms of Bashan being considered an evil place by ancient Israelites and later Jews. I am not entirely convinced by Heiser’s argument that Bashan was considered a gateway to the underworld, however. When Deuteronomy refers to Rephaim in Bashan, it may simply mean that there were giants who at one time lived in the land of Bashan, on earth, not that Bashan was a gateway to the Rephaim in hell.
C. Heiser addressed questions that I have had. For example, why would the ancients believe that gods dwelt on mountains, if they could simply climb the mountains and see that the gods were not there? Why would God tell Adam and Eve to fill the earth in Genesis 1, when Genesis 2 seems to presume that, had they not sinned, they would have stayed in the Garden of Eden rather than filling the earth? Heiser’s answers generate more questions in my head, but he did well to address them.
D. I am not saying this to be a heresy-hunter, but Heiser’s view on the divine inspiration and historicity of the Bible was rather unclear to me. Heiser seemed to argue that the divine-human unions in Genesis 6 and the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 were Jewish responses to Babylonian or Mesopotamian claims. Does that imply that they were stories created during the exilic period and did not actually happen in history? Heiser also appears to argue that the Bible reflects some of the limitations in knowledge of its time: for instance, Isaiah 66:19’s reference to Tarshish and Paul’s desire to go to Spain reflect ancient ideas about the extent of the earth. Would Heiser treat this as an example of divine accommodation?
E. Although my point in (D.) may portray Heiser as somewhat of a liberal, there were salient conservative elements in Heiser’s treatment of the Bible. Source criticism was lacking in the book, as if the Bible reflected one divine authorial intent. Heiser attempted to harmonize apparent contradictions (i.e., statements that appear to suggest that there are no other gods besides YHWH, and statements that acknowledge the existence of other gods). Isaiah 53 is applied to the Davidic king, without much argument (page 247). The Gospel of Mark is presumed to see Jesus as God-incarnate, when there are many scholars who disagree. Source criticism could have an impact on Heiser’s argument: is the Bible’s message, for example, that humans and Israel are to fill the world with God’s influence, when there are some exclusivist voices in the Hebrew Bible? I doubt, though, that source criticism would overthrow every argument that Heiser makes. Heiser’s approach may be a reasonable canonical way to approach the text, as Heiser implies when he refers to the divine inspiration of the text’s final form. Plus, there is a possibility that New Testament authors and figures were influenced by the Old Testament themes in the manner that Heiser discusses.
F. Heiser does well to refer to scholarly literature about Jewish binitarianism. I question, though, whether Heiser’s interpretation of the Angel of the Lord is the only way to account for that figure. Is the Angel of the Lord a second YHWH, co-eternal with the other YHWH, or is he simply a created being acting as God’s representative, carrying divine privileges and authority as God’s representative? The view that a created being could represent God and carry divine prerogatives was present in ancient Judaism, as J.R. Daniel Kirk demonstrates in his book, A Man Attested by God (Eerdmans, 2016).
My questions notwithstanding, I found The Unseen Realm to be an interesting, engaging, and well-argued book.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Michael S. Heiser has an M.A. in Ancient History (with a focus on ancient Israel and Egyptology) from the University of Pennsylvania, as well as a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which is an academic powerhouse in Hebrew Bible and Semitic studies.
To provide a rough summary of the story that Heiser tells, let’s start with Adam and Eve. According to Heiser, God created Adam and Eve to reproduce and fill the earth with people made in God’s image, extending the influence of God throughout the world (Genesis 1:28). The Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve were to receive revelations from God, was the earthy location of the divine council, God’s council of divine beings that is mentioned in Scripture (i.e., Psalm 82; I Kings 22:19ff.). In the ancient Near East, gods met or dwelt on mountains and in gardens, so Heiser believes that the Garden of Eden was a meeting place for the divine council. Among the divine council was the serpent, who was part of the divine retinue, as serpents were in ancient Near Eastern imagery of gods, and perhaps also in Isaiah 6:2. This serpent rebels against God and tempts Adam and Eve to sin, with the result that the serpent is cast to the underworld, as Heiser reads Genesis 2 in light of the rebellious beings in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.
Years later, after the Flood, human beings have failed to heed God’s desire for them to scatter throughout the earth and spread God’s influence. They want to recapture the access to the divine council that Adam and Eve had, so they attempt to build a tower to the heavens, the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). God scatters the people over the face of the earth by confusing their languages. As God divides up the nations, God assigns each nation to a particular god, who would rule the nation (Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 32:8-9). Israel, however, would belong to God God-self. Other gods try to thwart God’s plan to rule Israel and, in turn, to spread God’s influence throughout the world through Israel. As they did prior to the Flood (Genesis 6), the gods mate with human beings and produce giant offspring, and this offspring inhabits the Promised Land, where God intends the Israelites to dwell. The Israelite Conquest of the Promised Land is about ridding the land of this giant offspring, even though Heiser states that there were many Canaanites who were not giants.
For Heiser, the work of Jesus was about freeing the nations from the rule of the gods, so that God and exalted believers would rule the nations instead. The gods are not eager to relinquish their reign, however, and that is why Christians are in a battle against principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12). The Kingdom of God is already and not yet.
This is the overall picture that Heiser presents, but there are other arguments that Heiser makes, as well. Like a number of Christians, Heiser contends that there are two YHWHs in the Old Testament, one of them being a YHWH who appears to people in a visible form. For Heiser, that particular YHWH is Jesus Christ. Heiser states that, “in some of the oldest manuscripts of Jude (e.g., Alexandrinus and Vaticanus),” Jude 5 states that Jesus led the Israelites out of Egypt at the Exodus (page 270).
Another prominent topic in this book is Bashan and Mount Hermon, in the north. Both were part of Og’s dominion. Og was one of the Rephaim, an offspring of a divine-human union (Deuteronomy 3:13; Joshua 12:5). For Heiser, Bashan was a spiritually evil place. Heiser regards it as a gate to hell, since Ugaritic literature presents Rephaim in the underworld, plus Bashan can mean serpent, and the serpent of Genesis 3 was in the underworld. I Enoch 6:1-6 states that Mount Hermon was where the divine beings of Genesis 6 came when they cohabited with women, producing the giant Nephilim. In Jesus’ time, Mount Hermon was a prominent site of pagan temples, and Heiser argues that Jesus is alluding to it when he states, near that very site, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18). Bashan appears in the context of Scriptural passages that the New Testament quotes (Psalm 22; Psalm 68), and Heiser deems that to be significant. Heiser also maintains that Bashan has eschatological significance, as he interprets eschatological danger from the north in reference to the evil spiritual forces of Bashan. Most interestingly, Heiser speculates that the maligned cows of Bashan in Amos 4:1-2 are not rich women but rather supernatural beings!
Other fascinating topics that Heiser explores: the question of whether the “god of this age” who blinds people in II Corinthians 4:4 is Satan or God; the identity of Armageddon (for Heiser, it is not Megiddo!); why Paul wanted to go to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28), and how Isaiah 66:19 relates to that; themes from the Hebrew Bible that appear in the story of Pentecost (Acts 2); and how the Old Testament foreshadows (and does not foreshadow) Jesus. And there are many more topics that Heiser discusses, not only in the text but also in the in-depth footnotes.
Here are some thoughts:
A. I am slightly unclear about where Heiser believes the demons/gods, specifically the demons/gods who ruled the nations, came to be located. Obviously, these gods started out in heaven, but does Heiser believe that the gods who rule the nations were cast from heaven into hell? Heiser believes that there are evil spirits in hell: the serpent, and the spirits of the giants. But what about the gods who rule the nations? My impression was that, sometimes in this book, these evil spirits got conflated, and that was where my confusion arose.
B. There may be something to Heiser’s arguments about Bashan, in terms of Bashan being considered an evil place by ancient Israelites and later Jews. I am not entirely convinced by Heiser’s argument that Bashan was considered a gateway to the underworld, however. When Deuteronomy refers to Rephaim in Bashan, it may simply mean that there were giants who at one time lived in the land of Bashan, on earth, not that Bashan was a gateway to the Rephaim in hell.
C. Heiser addressed questions that I have had. For example, why would the ancients believe that gods dwelt on mountains, if they could simply climb the mountains and see that the gods were not there? Why would God tell Adam and Eve to fill the earth in Genesis 1, when Genesis 2 seems to presume that, had they not sinned, they would have stayed in the Garden of Eden rather than filling the earth? Heiser’s answers generate more questions in my head, but he did well to address them.
D. I am not saying this to be a heresy-hunter, but Heiser’s view on the divine inspiration and historicity of the Bible was rather unclear to me. Heiser seemed to argue that the divine-human unions in Genesis 6 and the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 were Jewish responses to Babylonian or Mesopotamian claims. Does that imply that they were stories created during the exilic period and did not actually happen in history? Heiser also appears to argue that the Bible reflects some of the limitations in knowledge of its time: for instance, Isaiah 66:19’s reference to Tarshish and Paul’s desire to go to Spain reflect ancient ideas about the extent of the earth. Would Heiser treat this as an example of divine accommodation?
E. Although my point in (D.) may portray Heiser as somewhat of a liberal, there were salient conservative elements in Heiser’s treatment of the Bible. Source criticism was lacking in the book, as if the Bible reflected one divine authorial intent. Heiser attempted to harmonize apparent contradictions (i.e., statements that appear to suggest that there are no other gods besides YHWH, and statements that acknowledge the existence of other gods). Isaiah 53 is applied to the Davidic king, without much argument (page 247). The Gospel of Mark is presumed to see Jesus as God-incarnate, when there are many scholars who disagree. Source criticism could have an impact on Heiser’s argument: is the Bible’s message, for example, that humans and Israel are to fill the world with God’s influence, when there are some exclusivist voices in the Hebrew Bible? I doubt, though, that source criticism would overthrow every argument that Heiser makes. Heiser’s approach may be a reasonable canonical way to approach the text, as Heiser implies when he refers to the divine inspiration of the text’s final form. Plus, there is a possibility that New Testament authors and figures were influenced by the Old Testament themes in the manner that Heiser discusses.
F. Heiser does well to refer to scholarly literature about Jewish binitarianism. I question, though, whether Heiser’s interpretation of the Angel of the Lord is the only way to account for that figure. Is the Angel of the Lord a second YHWH, co-eternal with the other YHWH, or is he simply a created being acting as God’s representative, carrying divine privileges and authority as God’s representative? The view that a created being could represent God and carry divine prerogatives was present in ancient Judaism, as J.R. Daniel Kirk demonstrates in his book, A Man Attested by God (Eerdmans, 2016).
My questions notwithstanding, I found The Unseen Realm to be an interesting, engaging, and well-argued book.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Book Write-Up: A Spectacle of Glory, by Joni Eareckson Tada
Joni Eareckson Tada, with Larry Libby. A Spectacle of Glory: God’s Light Shining Through Me Every Day. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. See here to buy the book.
For almost fifty years, Joni Eareckson Tada has been a quadriplegic, dealing, not only with the limitations that this condition brings, but also with continuous chronic pain. Her book, A Spectacle of Glory, is a daily devotional. Each devotion contains a Scripture reference (without always quoting the Scripture), thoughts that relate to the Scripture (sometimes explicitly, and sometimes not), and a prayer.
Some topics that recur throughout the book include:
—-God’s care for us, strengthening of us, and enabling us for service in the midst of our helplessness and our weakness.
—-How we should give God thanks for everything, including suffering. Tada says that she grew up as a Reformed Episcopalian, so perhaps Reformed teachings about the sovereignty of God influence her teaching, in this area. Tada also mentions the Puritans more than once in this book.
—-How our dead Christian friends and relatives may be praying for us in heaven. This reminded me of Catholic teaching about the intercession of the saints!
—-The importance of continual prayer and Bible reading.
—-How others can see us handle adversity with strength, joy, patience, and endurance (with God’s help) and be drawn to God as a result. This teaching turns me off, somewhat, since it seems to imply that Christians are supposed to put on a show of poise before the world, when they themselves struggle, as Tada herself confesses. Still, I can see how this teaching can give suffering people comfort, by placing their suffering within the context of an important mission.
—-The hope of going to heaven after death.
—-Jesus is our friend even when we are alone, yet fellowship with other people is important, as a way to encourage them and to be encouraged.
—-How Jesus on earth was thoughtful of and towards others, even in his own time of suffering. These particular devotions, in my opinion, were the best in the book, for Tada supported what she was saying with examples from Scripture. Often, when Christians are told to imitate Jesus, I wonder how one can do that, specifically. I can’t perform miracles, and I will not be crucified any time soon! But I can try to imitate Jesus’ thoughtfulness towards others in the Gospels, as Jesus expressed concern for people and engaged them.
These were topics that recurred frequently throughout the book, but here are some honorable mentions, or devotions that raised thoughtful points that occurred only once in the book (as far as I remember): the devotion about how we should not cling to our blessings (page 47), and the devotion saying that God is not disillusioned with us because God had no illusions about us in the first place (page 374)!
Although the book covered certain points more than once, it was never boring, for Tada used different anecdotes and examples. Her points were not particularly deep, but they were still insightful, authentic, and encouraging.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through BookLook Bloggers. My review is honest!
For almost fifty years, Joni Eareckson Tada has been a quadriplegic, dealing, not only with the limitations that this condition brings, but also with continuous chronic pain. Her book, A Spectacle of Glory, is a daily devotional. Each devotion contains a Scripture reference (without always quoting the Scripture), thoughts that relate to the Scripture (sometimes explicitly, and sometimes not), and a prayer.
Some topics that recur throughout the book include:
—-God’s care for us, strengthening of us, and enabling us for service in the midst of our helplessness and our weakness.
—-How we should give God thanks for everything, including suffering. Tada says that she grew up as a Reformed Episcopalian, so perhaps Reformed teachings about the sovereignty of God influence her teaching, in this area. Tada also mentions the Puritans more than once in this book.
—-How our dead Christian friends and relatives may be praying for us in heaven. This reminded me of Catholic teaching about the intercession of the saints!
—-The importance of continual prayer and Bible reading.
—-How others can see us handle adversity with strength, joy, patience, and endurance (with God’s help) and be drawn to God as a result. This teaching turns me off, somewhat, since it seems to imply that Christians are supposed to put on a show of poise before the world, when they themselves struggle, as Tada herself confesses. Still, I can see how this teaching can give suffering people comfort, by placing their suffering within the context of an important mission.
—-The hope of going to heaven after death.
—-Jesus is our friend even when we are alone, yet fellowship with other people is important, as a way to encourage them and to be encouraged.
—-How Jesus on earth was thoughtful of and towards others, even in his own time of suffering. These particular devotions, in my opinion, were the best in the book, for Tada supported what she was saying with examples from Scripture. Often, when Christians are told to imitate Jesus, I wonder how one can do that, specifically. I can’t perform miracles, and I will not be crucified any time soon! But I can try to imitate Jesus’ thoughtfulness towards others in the Gospels, as Jesus expressed concern for people and engaged them.
These were topics that recurred frequently throughout the book, but here are some honorable mentions, or devotions that raised thoughtful points that occurred only once in the book (as far as I remember): the devotion about how we should not cling to our blessings (page 47), and the devotion saying that God is not disillusioned with us because God had no illusions about us in the first place (page 374)!
Although the book covered certain points more than once, it was never boring, for Tada used different anecdotes and examples. Her points were not particularly deep, but they were still insightful, authentic, and encouraging.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through BookLook Bloggers. My review is honest!
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Current Events Write-Up: Trump, Trump's Appointees, Star Wars, Introverts, and Nixon
Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up, where I link to news and opinion pieces and comment about them.
Trump, Trump’s Appointees, Etc.
Christianity Today magazine had a status above its article, “Here’s Who Will Pray at Trump’s Inauguration.” The status states: “Trump’s inauguration will be the first in decades to include Jewish and Catholic clergy.” It’s times like this that I love that man!
Jia Jiang at Fox News Opinion had an article, “How Trump Used the Incredible Power of Rejection to Win the White House.” Trump was rejected, yet he used rejection to his advantage and never gave up. That has distinguished him from previous, traditional candidates.
Washington Post: “I’m a Muslim, a Woman, and an Immigrant. I Voted for Trump,” by Asra Q. Nomani.
No comment here, except “I liked this article.” Of course, it got nitpicked. But guess what? I still like this article.
Polizette: “Trump Should Never Stop Tweeting: President-elect Has Hamstrung a Hostile Press by Tapping a Direct Line to the American People,” by Eddie Zipperer.
Not only that, but Trump’s tweets get results. For example: Republicans on the Hill plan to gut an ethics office, Trump tweets, and the Republicans abandon their plan. Maybe Trump’s tweet was not a resounding opposition to their plan, but his tweet still got results!
Robert Reich is no fan of Trump, even in the status that I am about to quote. Still, I liked this part of the status: “Ford has come under heavy criticism from Trump for its plan to build a $1.6 billion plant in Mexico. Today, Ford CEO Mark Fields said the company had canceled the plan and would instead invest $700 million to increase production of electric and hybrid cars at its plant in Flat Rock, Michigan.” Reich goes on to criticize Trump, for understandable reasons, but isn’t it cool that Ford will be making more electric and hybrid cars? Isn’t that what we want: clean energy?
Forbes: “Pickens is Right about Trump’s Energy Priorities—-and Here’s Why,” by David Blackmon.
Technically, this is advice from T. Boone Pickens to Trump. Pickens makes good points about how the government can coordinate energy policy more effectively.
I liked this line from Clarissa’s Blog: “Trump is defending Assange and soon probably Snowden. Cognitive dissonance is awaiting many liberals.” That’s what I like about Trump. He doesn’t follow the party line!
Speaking of Assange, Politico had this status: “A former CIA analyst writes: ‘The next president of the United States is siding with Julian Assange…over the U.S. intelligence community – thousands of smart, patriotic people who work long hours for middling pay, some risking their lives to keep the rest of us safe.'” Here’s a question: Why aren’t more progressives applauding Trump on this? Haven’t they been fierce critics of the CIA and the national security state?
Moving on to Trump appointees. Julia Hahn at Breitbart writes about Richard Lighthizer, Trump’s choice for U.S. Trade Representatives. She looks at Lighthizer’s writings that lean towards protectionism.
Dan Rather is no fan of the President-elect, but Rather states that “the selection of retired Marine Corps General James Mattis as Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense strikes me as one of the most sober-minded choices in his cabinet” (after offering reservations about “recent military men and women heading the civilian control of the Department of Defense”). Rather links to a New York Times article about Mattis’ opposition to torture.
Omarosa Manigault was appointed Trump’s Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. She is known as a contestant on The Apprentice, and, according to this article, she has worked for Gore and Clinton in the past. But she became a Trump supporter, and she says that other African-Americans are moving towards the Republican Party. I remember her saying on the Frontline profile of the two candidates, “The Choice: 2016,” that every critic will bow down to President Trump (see the trailer here). I saw that before Election Day, and my reaction was “President Trump? Dream on!” But Trump went on to win the election!
Star Wars
Jonathan V. Last of The Weekly Standard (often associated with neoconservatism) defends the Empire. My reaction was “Typical neocon!”, but the article was still an enjoyable read, for this Star Wars geek.
Marc Barnes at First Things has an article entitled “Rogue One and the Return of Reverence.” Barnes praises Rogue One for having a more religious conception of the Force.
Introverts
The Atlantic had a slightly depressing article about how the teaching profession caters to extroverts, when introverts can be fine teachers. It said academia is better for introverts. I remember one professor saying, though, that having students do private research does not completely equip them for academia, in which they will have to interact and work with surly personalities. He may be right. Still, academia does involve a lot of private research.
Historical Interest
I wrote about Richard Nixon on my blog for a whole year, 2013. I should probably mention the latest findings that seem to indicate that Nixon tried to sabotage Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam talks.
Trump, Trump’s Appointees, Etc.
Christianity Today magazine had a status above its article, “Here’s Who Will Pray at Trump’s Inauguration.” The status states: “Trump’s inauguration will be the first in decades to include Jewish and Catholic clergy.” It’s times like this that I love that man!
Jia Jiang at Fox News Opinion had an article, “How Trump Used the Incredible Power of Rejection to Win the White House.” Trump was rejected, yet he used rejection to his advantage and never gave up. That has distinguished him from previous, traditional candidates.
Washington Post: “I’m a Muslim, a Woman, and an Immigrant. I Voted for Trump,” by Asra Q. Nomani.
No comment here, except “I liked this article.” Of course, it got nitpicked. But guess what? I still like this article.
Polizette: “Trump Should Never Stop Tweeting: President-elect Has Hamstrung a Hostile Press by Tapping a Direct Line to the American People,” by Eddie Zipperer.
Not only that, but Trump’s tweets get results. For example: Republicans on the Hill plan to gut an ethics office, Trump tweets, and the Republicans abandon their plan. Maybe Trump’s tweet was not a resounding opposition to their plan, but his tweet still got results!
Robert Reich is no fan of Trump, even in the status that I am about to quote. Still, I liked this part of the status: “Ford has come under heavy criticism from Trump for its plan to build a $1.6 billion plant in Mexico. Today, Ford CEO Mark Fields said the company had canceled the plan and would instead invest $700 million to increase production of electric and hybrid cars at its plant in Flat Rock, Michigan.” Reich goes on to criticize Trump, for understandable reasons, but isn’t it cool that Ford will be making more electric and hybrid cars? Isn’t that what we want: clean energy?
Forbes: “Pickens is Right about Trump’s Energy Priorities—-and Here’s Why,” by David Blackmon.
Technically, this is advice from T. Boone Pickens to Trump. Pickens makes good points about how the government can coordinate energy policy more effectively.
I liked this line from Clarissa’s Blog: “Trump is defending Assange and soon probably Snowden. Cognitive dissonance is awaiting many liberals.” That’s what I like about Trump. He doesn’t follow the party line!
Speaking of Assange, Politico had this status: “A former CIA analyst writes: ‘The next president of the United States is siding with Julian Assange…over the U.S. intelligence community – thousands of smart, patriotic people who work long hours for middling pay, some risking their lives to keep the rest of us safe.'” Here’s a question: Why aren’t more progressives applauding Trump on this? Haven’t they been fierce critics of the CIA and the national security state?
Moving on to Trump appointees. Julia Hahn at Breitbart writes about Richard Lighthizer, Trump’s choice for U.S. Trade Representatives. She looks at Lighthizer’s writings that lean towards protectionism.
Dan Rather is no fan of the President-elect, but Rather states that “the selection of retired Marine Corps General James Mattis as Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense strikes me as one of the most sober-minded choices in his cabinet” (after offering reservations about “recent military men and women heading the civilian control of the Department of Defense”). Rather links to a New York Times article about Mattis’ opposition to torture.
Omarosa Manigault was appointed Trump’s Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. She is known as a contestant on The Apprentice, and, according to this article, she has worked for Gore and Clinton in the past. But she became a Trump supporter, and she says that other African-Americans are moving towards the Republican Party. I remember her saying on the Frontline profile of the two candidates, “The Choice: 2016,” that every critic will bow down to President Trump (see the trailer here). I saw that before Election Day, and my reaction was “President Trump? Dream on!” But Trump went on to win the election!
Star Wars
Jonathan V. Last of The Weekly Standard (often associated with neoconservatism) defends the Empire. My reaction was “Typical neocon!”, but the article was still an enjoyable read, for this Star Wars geek.
Marc Barnes at First Things has an article entitled “Rogue One and the Return of Reverence.” Barnes praises Rogue One for having a more religious conception of the Force.
Introverts
The Atlantic had a slightly depressing article about how the teaching profession caters to extroverts, when introverts can be fine teachers. It said academia is better for introverts. I remember one professor saying, though, that having students do private research does not completely equip them for academia, in which they will have to interact and work with surly personalities. He may be right. Still, academia does involve a lot of private research.
Historical Interest
I wrote about Richard Nixon on my blog for a whole year, 2013. I should probably mention the latest findings that seem to indicate that Nixon tried to sabotage Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam talks.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
A Marriage Testimony
At church last Sunday, a couple gave their testimony.
The husband introduced his wife, who would read their testimony. The husband said that, in the decades before he became born again, he was a sinner whose sins put Christ on the cross.
The wife then read their story. She said that the husband was a laid-back man who let her make all the decisions. “Whatever you say, wife” was his catchphrase. She related that she was a control-freak and liked making the decisions, and yet part of her wished that her husband would step forward more often.
She wanted her husband to go to church, but the husband felt uncomfortable whenever he attended church with her. He was going to church to please her. As far as his personal beliefs went, he had a belief in God. But his priorities were his job, then his family.
Her husband worked a lot, and she felt neglected. They were drifting apart, and she wanted a divorce. Her husband replied that he did not want a divorce, but that he would go along with what she wanted.
They still lived together, even after they were divorced. At some point, the husband concluded that he needed Jesus in his life. He started going to church, not to please her, but because that was what he wanted to do.
They started dating, and they decided to get back together. Now they serve God together.
It was odd to hear her husband describe himself as such a gross sinner before he became saved, when, in his pre-conversion state, he seemed like a nice, laid-back guy. But he was neglecting God and his marriage, though, and that is probably what he felt bad about.
I had some difficulty identifying with the wife’s desire for a divorce. Like I said, the husband seemed like a laid-back guy. He was a non-confontational, “go with the flow,” “keep the peace” kind of person. He wasn’t chasing women or being abusive. But feelings of estrangement and loneliness, and a desire for her husband to be more of a leader, were factors behind her desire for a divorce.
Where this testimony hits home is that I can envision myself being the sort of husband that he was. Avoiding confrontation. Letting someone else make the decisions. Using work as an escape. Feeling like my marriage is successful because I’m going with the flow and not making waves. If I were married and were to try to learn from his example, I would probably spend more time with my wife. Would I step forward and take more initiative in making decisions? That may be a challenge. If I felt strongly about something, maybe I would.
The part of the testimony about the husband needing Jesus in his life stood out to me. It is one thing to have a vague belief in God. It is another thing to have a daily relationship with Jesus, in which Jesus is part of one’s life.
I don’t know people in the church or their story, so it was interesting to hear the struggles of one couple who attends the church.
I’m hesitantly leaving the comments open.
The husband introduced his wife, who would read their testimony. The husband said that, in the decades before he became born again, he was a sinner whose sins put Christ on the cross.
The wife then read their story. She said that the husband was a laid-back man who let her make all the decisions. “Whatever you say, wife” was his catchphrase. She related that she was a control-freak and liked making the decisions, and yet part of her wished that her husband would step forward more often.
She wanted her husband to go to church, but the husband felt uncomfortable whenever he attended church with her. He was going to church to please her. As far as his personal beliefs went, he had a belief in God. But his priorities were his job, then his family.
Her husband worked a lot, and she felt neglected. They were drifting apart, and she wanted a divorce. Her husband replied that he did not want a divorce, but that he would go along with what she wanted.
They still lived together, even after they were divorced. At some point, the husband concluded that he needed Jesus in his life. He started going to church, not to please her, but because that was what he wanted to do.
They started dating, and they decided to get back together. Now they serve God together.
It was odd to hear her husband describe himself as such a gross sinner before he became saved, when, in his pre-conversion state, he seemed like a nice, laid-back guy. But he was neglecting God and his marriage, though, and that is probably what he felt bad about.
I had some difficulty identifying with the wife’s desire for a divorce. Like I said, the husband seemed like a laid-back guy. He was a non-confontational, “go with the flow,” “keep the peace” kind of person. He wasn’t chasing women or being abusive. But feelings of estrangement and loneliness, and a desire for her husband to be more of a leader, were factors behind her desire for a divorce.
Where this testimony hits home is that I can envision myself being the sort of husband that he was. Avoiding confrontation. Letting someone else make the decisions. Using work as an escape. Feeling like my marriage is successful because I’m going with the flow and not making waves. If I were married and were to try to learn from his example, I would probably spend more time with my wife. Would I step forward and take more initiative in making decisions? That may be a challenge. If I felt strongly about something, maybe I would.
The part of the testimony about the husband needing Jesus in his life stood out to me. It is one thing to have a vague belief in God. It is another thing to have a daily relationship with Jesus, in which Jesus is part of one’s life.
I don’t know people in the church or their story, so it was interesting to hear the struggles of one couple who attends the church.
I’m hesitantly leaving the comments open.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Book Write-Up: Preaching Old Testament Narratives, by Benjamin H. Walton
Benjamin H. Walton. Preaching Old Testament Narratives. Grand Rapids: Kregel Ministry, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Benjamin H. Walton has a D.Min. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and has lectured at many Christian universities and seminaries.
As the title indicates, this book is about how pastors can preach about narratives in the Old Testament. First, Walton believes that pastors should identify a pericope in the Old Testament, which he calls a “Complete Unit of Thought (CUT),” and he offers suggestions as to what one should look for in doing that. Second, Walton stresses the importance of centering the sermon around a “Take-Home Truth (THT),” a theological or spiritual insight that is rooted in the Old Testament pericope itself as well as the pericope’s significance within the larger Old Testament narrative, while also being relevant to believers under the New Covenant. In addition, Walton offers insights on how to craft an introduction, the usage of anecdotes and humor, application points, and delivery. Walton’s sample texts in this book are II Samuel 11-12 (David and Bathsheba) and Genesis 11:1-9 (the Tower of Babel). In the Appendix section, Walton includes two sermons on those texts, marking the sermons according to the sermon strategies that he has discussed in the book.
The book is very detailed. Walton has definite ideas about what sermons should look like, where the parts of the sermon should go, and why. While the book is rather dense in some places, I have to admit that the sermons in it are quite good: they are lucid, informative, insightful, compassionate, sensitive, empathetic, relatable, and coherent. I doubt that a person could casually read this book and then “Go and do likewise,” just like that. Rather, applying the principles in this book would take rereading and study of the book, or at least sections of it. In some of my own preaching experiences, I spent lots of time researching the biblical text, and the result was highly academic sermons without a central thesis. I then figured that perhaps “less is more” and I should spend less time in preparation. But, actually, according to Walton, preparing a good sermon does take time: about fifteen hours! But, for Walton, that time is not limited to researching the biblical text but also includes seeking anecdotes and jokes, crafting points of application, and practicing the delivery.
The book has many positives. Its detail and its advice were definitely helpful, but I also appreciated its stance towards the Hebrew Bible. Walton shies away from typological and allegorical approaches towards the Old Testament and prefers to allow the Old Testament narratives to speak in their own voice. Yet, Walton’s approach is still Christian. For Walton, the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are different, and that should be acknowledged. Still, Walton maintains that there are truths and principles in the Old Testament that are still applicable to believers under the New Covenant, even if believers may apply them differently from how they were applied under the Old Covenant. Walton also believes that the Gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection should be included in sermons, often as the answer to issues that the Old Testament and the “Take-Home Truth” raise. Walton allows the Old Testament to be the Old Testament and the New Testament to be the New Testament, respecting each on its own terms; yet, he manages to relate the Old Testament to believers under the New Covenant, in a sensible manner.
The book also offered advice as to how people can get their sermons critiqued. Those who lack a social network may find Walton’s reference to a specific preaching web site to be helpful: a person can leave their sermon there, and people comment on it.
In terms of critiques, there may be readers who finish this book despairing that they cannot craft and deliver a perfect sermon, or thinking that they lack the insight or creativity to “Go and do likewise!” Walton should have demonstrated an understanding tone towards people in that situation (like the understanding tone in the sermons). While Walton did well to refer to academic books for the research aspect of the sermon, he should have also referred to books on sermon humor and sermon anecdotes. Finally, Walton should have clearly marked the biblical texts with which he was interacting, since there were times when he was interacting with more than one biblical text, and that could get confusing.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Benjamin H. Walton has a D.Min. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and has lectured at many Christian universities and seminaries.
As the title indicates, this book is about how pastors can preach about narratives in the Old Testament. First, Walton believes that pastors should identify a pericope in the Old Testament, which he calls a “Complete Unit of Thought (CUT),” and he offers suggestions as to what one should look for in doing that. Second, Walton stresses the importance of centering the sermon around a “Take-Home Truth (THT),” a theological or spiritual insight that is rooted in the Old Testament pericope itself as well as the pericope’s significance within the larger Old Testament narrative, while also being relevant to believers under the New Covenant. In addition, Walton offers insights on how to craft an introduction, the usage of anecdotes and humor, application points, and delivery. Walton’s sample texts in this book are II Samuel 11-12 (David and Bathsheba) and Genesis 11:1-9 (the Tower of Babel). In the Appendix section, Walton includes two sermons on those texts, marking the sermons according to the sermon strategies that he has discussed in the book.
The book is very detailed. Walton has definite ideas about what sermons should look like, where the parts of the sermon should go, and why. While the book is rather dense in some places, I have to admit that the sermons in it are quite good: they are lucid, informative, insightful, compassionate, sensitive, empathetic, relatable, and coherent. I doubt that a person could casually read this book and then “Go and do likewise,” just like that. Rather, applying the principles in this book would take rereading and study of the book, or at least sections of it. In some of my own preaching experiences, I spent lots of time researching the biblical text, and the result was highly academic sermons without a central thesis. I then figured that perhaps “less is more” and I should spend less time in preparation. But, actually, according to Walton, preparing a good sermon does take time: about fifteen hours! But, for Walton, that time is not limited to researching the biblical text but also includes seeking anecdotes and jokes, crafting points of application, and practicing the delivery.
The book has many positives. Its detail and its advice were definitely helpful, but I also appreciated its stance towards the Hebrew Bible. Walton shies away from typological and allegorical approaches towards the Old Testament and prefers to allow the Old Testament narratives to speak in their own voice. Yet, Walton’s approach is still Christian. For Walton, the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are different, and that should be acknowledged. Still, Walton maintains that there are truths and principles in the Old Testament that are still applicable to believers under the New Covenant, even if believers may apply them differently from how they were applied under the Old Covenant. Walton also believes that the Gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection should be included in sermons, often as the answer to issues that the Old Testament and the “Take-Home Truth” raise. Walton allows the Old Testament to be the Old Testament and the New Testament to be the New Testament, respecting each on its own terms; yet, he manages to relate the Old Testament to believers under the New Covenant, in a sensible manner.
The book also offered advice as to how people can get their sermons critiqued. Those who lack a social network may find Walton’s reference to a specific preaching web site to be helpful: a person can leave their sermon there, and people comment on it.
In terms of critiques, there may be readers who finish this book despairing that they cannot craft and deliver a perfect sermon, or thinking that they lack the insight or creativity to “Go and do likewise!” Walton should have demonstrated an understanding tone towards people in that situation (like the understanding tone in the sermons). While Walton did well to refer to academic books for the research aspect of the sermon, he should have also referred to books on sermon humor and sermon anecdotes. Finally, Walton should have clearly marked the biblical texts with which he was interacting, since there were times when he was interacting with more than one biblical text, and that could get confusing.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Monday, January 2, 2017
Book Write-Up: Who Are You to Judge?, by Erwin W. Lutzer
Erwin W. Lutzer. Who Are You to Judge? Learning to Distinguish Between Truths, Half-Truths, and Lies. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2002, 2016. See here to buy the book.
“Judge not, that ye be not judged” (KJV). So said Jesus in Matthew 7:1.
What did Jesus mean, though? Does Jesus forbid Christians to evaluate people, behaviors, or beliefs?
Erwin Lutzer, the senior pastor of Moody Church, addresses this question. Lutzer is critical of trends in Christianity that pursue church unity at the expense of doctrinal and moral soundness. As Lutzer rejects the idea that Matthew 7:1 prohibits Christians from making evaluations, he wrestles with what Jesus meant. Lutzer concludes that Jesus in Matthew 7:1 forbids condemning people, judging their motives, and trying to morally purify others without working on oneself (i.e., the beam in their own eye, according to Matthew 7:3).
Lutzer spends the remainder of the book discussing how Christians can judge various things: doctrine; prophets; miracles; entertainment; physical appearance; neopaganism; supernatural manifestations (i.e., ghosts and angels); conduct; and moral character. In the process, Lutzer wrestles with different issues, such as biblical teaching on wealth (in reference to the prosperity Gospel), the debate between continuationism and cessationism, the occult, and the validity of the healings at Lourdes.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Lutzer’s discussion on Matthew 7:1 was effective, overall. This was especially the case when Lutzer looked at the Sermon on the Mount and noted that Jesus’ commands implied that his disciples should make judgments. There were aspects of the discussion that remained unresolved, however. According to Lutzer, Jesus forbids people to judge others’ motives. Yet, Lutzer notes that Jesus, in exhorting his disciples not to cast their pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6), presumes that his disciples should judge who is a swine. Does not judging a person to be a swine cast judgment on that person’s motives?
B. Lutzer believes that not every miracle is from God. For Lutzer, a miracle may be a demonic deception, there may be a natural explanation for it, or it could be made-up. Lutzer says that there were miracles in the ancient world outside of Christianity, and that there are miracles in non-Christian religions.
Such discussions in this book stood out to me, on account of my reading of Christian apologetics, and arguments against Christian apologetics. Many Christian apologists have argued that miracles, especially Jesus’ resurrection, attest to the truth of Christianity. But if non-Christians can perform miracles, too, does that not undermine the evidentiary value of miracles in demonstrating the truth Christianity? There are Christian apologists who argue that Christianity has been unique (or a rarity) in the miracles department, but Lutzer does not appear to go that route.
I have not yet read Lutzer’s apologetic works, but I will be interested to see how he treats miracles in those writings.
C. Lutzer seems to have problems with miracles that are performed without any concern about what the beneficiary believes or does morally. And, on the basis of Hebrews 1:14, Lutzer argues that angels assist believers, not non-believers (or, more accurately, Lutzer says there is no Scriptural evidence that they help non-believers). Lutzer is critical of stories about angels helping people who lack Christian faith.
Lutzer’s arguments deserve consideration. Lutzer notes that the gift of healing in I Corinthians was a spiritual gift within the church. In addition, one can argue that Jesus was not merely a traveling miracle-worker, as there was a significant spiritual component to his message.
Lutzer’s stance, as I understand it, does rub me the wrong way, though. There are indications in Scripture that God cares for and blesses those who do not know God (Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:17), or whose knowledge of God is only partial (Acts 10). Perhaps God can heal non-believers or send them angels as part of God’s kindness that is intended to lead them to repentance (Romans 2:4). Moreover, Jesus healed ten lepers, and only one came back to thank him (Luke 17:11-19), so perhaps Jesus does heal people, knowing that they will not always respond in the proper spiritual fashion.
D. Lutzer’s discussion of Romans 14 is especially helpful. For Lutzer, the passage is not about avoiding offense of people, for Jesus offended people. Rather, the passage is about being compassionate about where people are and the sins with which they struggle. That makes sense, in light of the passage itself and as a practical rule in life.
E. Lutzer’s chapter on integrity was pastoral, but it could have been more so. For Lutzer, integrity demands that a person do the right thing, regardless of the cost. A person who received workman’s comp after claiming that his injury was work-related when actually it was from a hunting accident, for example, should turn himself in and go to jail, as far as Lutzer is concerned. Fraud should not be tolerated, but how would Lutzer address reservations that the man may have about turning himself in? If this man goes to jail, how will that impact his family?
There are places, though, in which Lutzer recognizes and appreciates the complexity of issues, particularly when he discusses how Christian parents can respond when their children read Harry Potter novels.
F. Lutzer had good advice. He talks about an elderly man who stopped vegetating in front of the television set and started writing letters to missionaries and praying for them. And, on page 140, Lutzer states: “Don’t close your Bible until you have something from it that will fill your soul for that day.”
Overall, this is an enjoyable book. Lutzer wrestles with difficult questions. Scripture plays a significant role in this book, though there are times when Lutzer speculates without much Scriptural backing. The anecdotes in the book enhance it, for they make the book more interesting and relatable, while also giving the book a tone of authority, as Lutzer connects his discussions with real life (assuming the stories are accurate).
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
“Judge not, that ye be not judged” (KJV). So said Jesus in Matthew 7:1.
What did Jesus mean, though? Does Jesus forbid Christians to evaluate people, behaviors, or beliefs?
Erwin Lutzer, the senior pastor of Moody Church, addresses this question. Lutzer is critical of trends in Christianity that pursue church unity at the expense of doctrinal and moral soundness. As Lutzer rejects the idea that Matthew 7:1 prohibits Christians from making evaluations, he wrestles with what Jesus meant. Lutzer concludes that Jesus in Matthew 7:1 forbids condemning people, judging their motives, and trying to morally purify others without working on oneself (i.e., the beam in their own eye, according to Matthew 7:3).
Lutzer spends the remainder of the book discussing how Christians can judge various things: doctrine; prophets; miracles; entertainment; physical appearance; neopaganism; supernatural manifestations (i.e., ghosts and angels); conduct; and moral character. In the process, Lutzer wrestles with different issues, such as biblical teaching on wealth (in reference to the prosperity Gospel), the debate between continuationism and cessationism, the occult, and the validity of the healings at Lourdes.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Lutzer’s discussion on Matthew 7:1 was effective, overall. This was especially the case when Lutzer looked at the Sermon on the Mount and noted that Jesus’ commands implied that his disciples should make judgments. There were aspects of the discussion that remained unresolved, however. According to Lutzer, Jesus forbids people to judge others’ motives. Yet, Lutzer notes that Jesus, in exhorting his disciples not to cast their pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6), presumes that his disciples should judge who is a swine. Does not judging a person to be a swine cast judgment on that person’s motives?
B. Lutzer believes that not every miracle is from God. For Lutzer, a miracle may be a demonic deception, there may be a natural explanation for it, or it could be made-up. Lutzer says that there were miracles in the ancient world outside of Christianity, and that there are miracles in non-Christian religions.
Such discussions in this book stood out to me, on account of my reading of Christian apologetics, and arguments against Christian apologetics. Many Christian apologists have argued that miracles, especially Jesus’ resurrection, attest to the truth of Christianity. But if non-Christians can perform miracles, too, does that not undermine the evidentiary value of miracles in demonstrating the truth Christianity? There are Christian apologists who argue that Christianity has been unique (or a rarity) in the miracles department, but Lutzer does not appear to go that route.
I have not yet read Lutzer’s apologetic works, but I will be interested to see how he treats miracles in those writings.
C. Lutzer seems to have problems with miracles that are performed without any concern about what the beneficiary believes or does morally. And, on the basis of Hebrews 1:14, Lutzer argues that angels assist believers, not non-believers (or, more accurately, Lutzer says there is no Scriptural evidence that they help non-believers). Lutzer is critical of stories about angels helping people who lack Christian faith.
Lutzer’s arguments deserve consideration. Lutzer notes that the gift of healing in I Corinthians was a spiritual gift within the church. In addition, one can argue that Jesus was not merely a traveling miracle-worker, as there was a significant spiritual component to his message.
Lutzer’s stance, as I understand it, does rub me the wrong way, though. There are indications in Scripture that God cares for and blesses those who do not know God (Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:17), or whose knowledge of God is only partial (Acts 10). Perhaps God can heal non-believers or send them angels as part of God’s kindness that is intended to lead them to repentance (Romans 2:4). Moreover, Jesus healed ten lepers, and only one came back to thank him (Luke 17:11-19), so perhaps Jesus does heal people, knowing that they will not always respond in the proper spiritual fashion.
D. Lutzer’s discussion of Romans 14 is especially helpful. For Lutzer, the passage is not about avoiding offense of people, for Jesus offended people. Rather, the passage is about being compassionate about where people are and the sins with which they struggle. That makes sense, in light of the passage itself and as a practical rule in life.
E. Lutzer’s chapter on integrity was pastoral, but it could have been more so. For Lutzer, integrity demands that a person do the right thing, regardless of the cost. A person who received workman’s comp after claiming that his injury was work-related when actually it was from a hunting accident, for example, should turn himself in and go to jail, as far as Lutzer is concerned. Fraud should not be tolerated, but how would Lutzer address reservations that the man may have about turning himself in? If this man goes to jail, how will that impact his family?
There are places, though, in which Lutzer recognizes and appreciates the complexity of issues, particularly when he discusses how Christian parents can respond when their children read Harry Potter novels.
F. Lutzer had good advice. He talks about an elderly man who stopped vegetating in front of the television set and started writing letters to missionaries and praying for them. And, on page 140, Lutzer states: “Don’t close your Bible until you have something from it that will fill your soul for that day.”
Overall, this is an enjoyable book. Lutzer wrestles with difficult questions. Scripture plays a significant role in this book, though there are times when Lutzer speculates without much Scriptural backing. The anecdotes in the book enhance it, for they make the book more interesting and relatable, while also giving the book a tone of authority, as Lutzer connects his discussions with real life (assuming the stories are accurate).
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)