Church Write-Up: Bill Lumbergh-God (or Worse)?

I visited two churches last Sunday.  One was a non-denominational church that I visited before.  The other was a Baptist church.  The Baptist church was like an African-American church, in that it had an African-American choir, an African-American preacher, and enthusiastic call-and-response.  But there were a lot of white people there.

I will visit the Baptist church again in the future.  People were friendly, but not intrusive.  I also enjoyed the worship.  The songs varied, as they included old-time hymns, classic praise and worship songs that I used to sing at Intervarsity in the 1990’s, and modern praise songs.  At a lot of churches that I visit, we sing the modern songs, and I miss the praise and worship songs that I sang in the 1990’s (“Shout to the Lord,” “As the Deer,” etc.).  The worship at the Baptist church that I attended last Sunday was, thus, a refreshing experience.

To be honest, the sermons at both churches did not make me feel that good about God or myself.  At the non-denominational church, the sermon was about I John 4:18.  The translation that was being used was the New Living Translation, which states for that verse: “Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love.”


The preacher was saying that love and fear cannot co-exist in the same person.  I can understand that fear can hinder us from showing love to other people.  But to say that fear and love cannot co-exist in the same person?  Why can’t a person have a concern and a desire for another’s well-being, while still dealing with fears and phobias about life?  I don’t see why the two cannot co-exist.

And then my mind was unravelling the potential implications of what the preacher, and possibly I John 4:18, are saying.  Love is part of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22).  I John 4:8 says that those who do not love do not know God.  Since fear and love cannot co-exist, that must mean that people with fear lack love, right?  Does that mean that they lack the Holy Spirit, do not know God, and are unsaved?  Wouldn’t that kind of conclusion make a person more afraid of God’s punishment, not less, which would go against the spirit of I John 4:18?  Plus, would the preacher truly suggest that Christians are never afraid?  Everyone is afraid, on some level—-unless I am the only imperfect person to walk into a church!

I do not think that the preacher was intending for people to arrive at those kinds of negative conclusions.  After all, he said that only imperfect people are allowed at church.  He contrasted God with the boss Gary Cole plays in the movie Office Space, Bill Lumbergh: God is patient, not a tyrant who keeps secrets from employees.  The preacher would probably say that, when we fear, we are not truly grasping the depth of God’s love for us.  We are still loved by God in that case, but we have not truly or sufficiently internalized that love.

The Baptist church that I visited was going through the Book of James.  The preacher was talking about what James said about good works being an expression of faith.  The preacher was chiding those who attended church, yet did not serve the church, or somebody, in some capacity.  He was saying that every Christian has a spiritual gift, and, if we do not know what ours is, shame on us!  The preacher was saying that there will be Christians on judgment day whom God would let into heaven, yet God would do so with frustration: “Oh come in, you lazy person!”  The preacher did not mention this, but I thought of Jesus’ condemnation of the servant who hid the talent in Matthew 25: Jesus called that servant lazy and unprofitable, then ordered him thrown into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth!

I have a hard time seeing this God as unconditionally loving.  Even if I were to start doing service projects to make this God happy, I would still feel like I am serving Bill Lumbergh-God.  Maybe worse, since I read on wikipedia that Bill Lumbergh was not exactly confrontational.  I somewhat agreed with what the preacher was saying about giving back: we should not just be takers and consumers, but we should give.  But the picture of God that was in my mind after that service was not particularly positive.

Book Write-Up: Delilah, by Angela Hunt

Angela Hunt.  Delilah: Treacherous Beauty.  Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2016.  See here to buy the book.  

Delilah was the woman who betrayed the Israelite strongman Samson in Judges 16.  Delilah: Treacherous Beauty is a novelization about this figure.  

Delilah in this book is not exactly a villain.  She is a human being, with her own needs, struggles, and problems.  Yet, as in the Book of Judges, she does end up betraying Samson to the Philistines.  Why did she do that in this book?  You will have to read the book and find out!  I expected the book to go in one direction on this, but it went another direction, and lessons were learned in the process.

The book has its strengths.  It is well-written, and I could sympathize with the characters.  Delilah was an outsider and had been victimized.  She was settling down in a happy relationship with Samson, knowing in her heart that it would not last.  Samson was trying to endure his destiny as a chosen vessel for God’s purposes.  He was lonely and sought companionship.

The book took some interesting directions.  Chronologically, it placed Samson around the time of the prophet Samuel.  Delilah befriends Gibeonites, who were from the Canaanite people-group that Joshua preserved in Joshua 9.  There are discussions about the exact requirements of Samson’s Nazirite status, and whether Samson is allowed to use his strength for someone’s private vengeance.  Physically, Samson does not look like the giant muscle-man who is depicted in Bible movies and cartoons, and that leads people to wonder if there is some magical or supernatural source to his great strength.

In terms of critiques, the book could have followed the Bible better in one area: in Judges 16, the Philistine lords approach Delilah and offer her money to betray Samson; in Angela Hunt’s book, Delilah approaches the Philistine lords.  In the book, Delilah at the end becomes a part of Israel.  The book should have said, at least briefly, how Delilah mended her bridges with the Israelites after betraying Samson.  

Samson has a spirit-guide, of sorts, in the book.  That may sound New-Agey to some.  Perhaps the guide was an angel, though, or the Holy Spirit, or Samson’s conscience.  For much of the book, Samson does not see him as a spirit guide but actually thinks he’s a person.

This was an enjoyable read.  I am open to reading other Angela Hunt books.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley, in exchange for an honest review. 

Book Write-Up: How I Changed My Mind About Evolution

Kathryn Applegate and J.B. Stump.  How I Changed My Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science.  Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016.  See here to buy the book.

How I Changed My Mind About Evolution contains reflections by scientists, theologians, pastors, and biblical scholars about their journey with the creation-evolution controversy.  The contributors include Scot McKnight, Tremper Longman III, Francis Collins, John Ortberg, N.T. Wright, and others.  Most of the contributors wrote their essays specifically for this book; a few essays appeared in other sources and have been reprinted in this book with permission.  

Most of the stories are about how an author of an essay initially interpreted Genesis 1-2 literally, but his or her exposure to evolution and other scientific ideas challenged his or her Christian faith.  The authors varied on how open-minded their religious background was and when in their life they converted to Christianity, but most of the essays overlapped in that they dealt with how the authors changed their mind about evolution: they went from disbelieving it to accepting its truth, while still maintaining their Christian faith.  An exception to this pattern was the essay by N.T. Wright.  Wright’s essay was not about changing one’s mind about evolution, but rather it compared American responses to evolution to British responses.

The essays got better as the book proceeded.  The earlier essays referred to books that might be useful to people on a similar journey, and they had endearing stories, but the later essays were better because they got into more scientific meat, while still being accessible to the layperson.  For example, Daniel M. Harrell said: “I tried to preach about how entropy was a consequence of the fall, but physicists in my congregation were quick to correct me on that.  Had there been no entropy in the Garden, Adam and Eve would have been up to their necks in bacteria and bugs” (page 126).  Rodney J. Scott said that he used to believe that similarities among animals testified to a common designer rather than evolution, and he likened that to similarities among automobiles.  He says on page 162: “This illustration was actually more compelling in those days, but as I’ll mention below, insights from the genome projects make it less compelling now.”

Occasionally, essays in the book offered theological reflections on evolution or scientific insights.  One author compared the scientific view that order came from randomness with Christian beliefs about God’s sovereignty in the face of human free will.  A few essays wondered why God would wait millions of years before finally creating life on earth, and one author said that God takes God’s time.  

A question that I wish more authors had addressed is why one should become a Christian.  They seemed to assume the truth of Christianity, and they tried to show by various means how evolution can be consistent with Christianity, or at least not inconsistent with it.  But why believe in Christianity?  Why not conclude that Genesis 1-2 contradicts modern science because the Bible was written by human beings rather than God?  What makes the authors of this book think that Christianity is true?  Even though most of the authors told stories about how they came to faith, they did not wrestle with the question of why Christianity is true; rather, they assumed it.  There were a few incidents in which authors came close to saying why they thought that Christianity was true: one appealed to his experience and said that God continued to work in his life, even after he accepted the truth of evolution; another appealed to a physicist who said that the cosmos looks like it developed with human beings in mind.  Overall, though, they did not explain what it was about Christianity that made them want to believe in it, amidst the challenges posed by science.

This is still a good book, though.  Those with similar struggles can read it and feel less alone.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.    

Book Write-Up: Still Life

Gillian Marchenko.  Still Life: A Memoir of Living Fully with Depression.  Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2016.  See here to buy the book.

In Still Life, Gillian Marchenko shares her journey with depression.  Gillian is the wife of a pastor, and two of her children have special needs.  She speaks to women’s groups about parenting.  Yet, she feels like a hypocrite because she thinks that her depression hinders her from being an adequate parent.

When I read books like this, what usually runs through my head is whether I identify with what the author is saying.  There is a reason, after all, that I would want to read a book about depression: because I often feel depressed, and I am curious about how somebody else copes with it.  I also wonder how religious faith interacts with depression, positively or negatively.

I did identify with some of what Gillian Marchenko was saying.  She talks about times when she has been needy for love.  She mentions times when she has wanted friends, yet her depression has led her to pull back from the friends she has.  She discusses the helpful and unhelpful things that therapists have said to her as she has shopped for a therapist, as well as unhelpful things that Christians have said to her.

But there were things that Gillian was saying that I did not identify with.  My depression is usually sadness about something.  But Gillian says on page 33: “People assume depression is about emotions: a person is sad; a person is down.  But I’ve come to realize that depression is about disappearing.  You become nothing.  Feelings fly away.  There is no future.  No past.  Your body becomes a shell with nothing inside.”

In reading Gillian’s book, I was hard pressed to find anything specific that she was sad about.  She does wrestle with feelings of guilt because she thinks that her depression hinders her from being present and helpful to her family, but that is a consequence of her depression, not its cause.  It seems that Gillian carries a heavy weight that incapacitates her.  She does not say that the weight is a reaction to anything.  It just is.

In terms of her practical attempts to cope with depression, she tries to do what is in front of her, breaking it down into manageable steps.  As far as her faith goes, seeing God’s love and grace as a gift is helpful to her.  Trying to have hope is difficult for her, since her depression goes in the opposite direction from hope.  She also draws strength from those who support her.  I like what she says on page 173: “My therapist, a thirty-something agnostic Jewish woman named Melanie, helps me heal.”

The book is about her own attempts to cope with depression, but also her family’s attempts to cope with her depression.  She talks about how her husband preaches about unconditional love within marriage and even believes in it, yet he himself struggles within his own marriage.  Her children want her to be present, but that is not always easy because depression can result in cancelled plans or put her in a position in which she does not even want to get out of bed.

Can this book help a person with friends or loved ones who have depression?  It can perhaps make a person more sympathetic and empathetic.  It can educate a person about what depression is.  I do not personally think that I am qualified to help someone who has depression: I would want to make the person feel better, and that is not necessarily possible.  But, if I know more about what a depressed person is going through, I can be more empathetic and interact with him or her better.  I can be supportive and try to avoid comments that are unhelpful.

I would have liked the book better had it had more theology: wrestling with religion and trying to find peace with it.  It just seems that the Bible commands people to be loving and joyful and to have inner peace, but there are people with conditions that run counter to that.  (A depressed person may have love, yet feel constrained in his or her ability to show love or to do loving things.)  Add to this that Christians supposedly have the Holy Spirit, who is supposed to make them more joyful, and yet so many sincere Christians struggle with a depression that they cannot control and that they did not ask for.  I struggle with the Bible where I am, but I would feel even more condemned by the Bible were I to have a more serious form of clinical depression.  Maybe I would have liked to see that sort of struggle in this book: Gillian’s brief discussion of hope came close to that.  I wonder, though, how the Holy Spirit works in the midst of depression.
But I cannot fault people for not having the same questions that I have, since people are on their own journeys.  Hopefully, this book sensitized me to somebody else’s struggle.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

Book Write-Up: Where Hope Prevails

Janette Oke and Laurel Oke Logan.  Where Hope Prevails.  Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2016.  See here to buy the book.

Where Hope Prevails is the third book of the “Return to the Canadian West” series.  The series is about a privileged city woman, Beth Thatcher, going to the coal mining Canadian West to teach.  I read the first two books of the series, and I have watched the first two seasons of the Hallmark Channel TV series that is based on it, entitled When Calls the Heart.  I was “meh” towards the first book, loved the second book, and absolutely adored the TV series.

In When Hope Prevails, Beth returns to the Canadian West to teach, and she find that an additional teacher will be instructing the older students.  His name is Robert Harris Hughes.  He is well-educated, formal, and sophisticated, and he is an atheist.  He has an agenda of social engineering, as he wants to try Bertrand Russell’s educational ideas on the rough Canadian West.  Beth, a devout Christian, fears the influence that Robert will have on his students.

The main reason I wanted to read this book was to see how this Christian novel would portray the clash in worldviews.  And the book did that rather well.  While Robert Harris Hughes in the book does put on airs and can be rather tactless, in a sophisticated sort of way, the book does not demonize him.  Beth’s love interest Jarrick sees him as a man pursuing wisdom.  Molly, whose homespun spiritual wisdom I appreciated in the first book, encourages Beth to love Robert.  Molly is unfazed by his atheism, realizing that the Holy Spirit can speak to his heart.  Beth and Robert even have a debate about the historicity of the Exodus!  The book ended on a rather open-ended note, in terms of Robert’s role in the story.  I hope that he is in future books, and even in the TV series.

The book covered other territory as well.  Jarrick and Beth are engaged, and Beth’s father has offered Jarrick a job in the city.  That would mean that Beth would have to quit teaching, which she is reluctant to do.  One of Beth’s students, Marnie, has met someone, and that may mean that Marnie will not pursue a career in teaching, which is what Beth wants for her.  There are also the usual sinister interests in the area, pursuing power in corrupt and insidious ways.  That affects the visiting schoolteacher, Robert Harris Hughes!
The book covered a lot of territory, and I would have preferred that it focus more on the tension in worldview between Beth and Robert.  Still, it was an enjoyable read.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley, in exchange for an honest review.

Church Write-Up: Word of Faith Moving Mountains

As I said in my post yesterday, I visited two churches last Sunday.  Today’s post will be about the second church that I visited.

I have visited this church three times so far.  Sometime in the future, I may talk about what attracts me to this church, and what disturbs me about it, somewhat.  Here, though, I would like to interact with features from last Sunday’s service.

The church had a guest speaker.  This speaker was in seminary with the church’s pastor, and they have been long-time friends.  The speaker was preaching about the Gospel passages in which Jesus tells his disciples that, if they have faith the size of a mustard seed, they will be able to move a mountain (Matthew 17:20; 21:21; Mark 11:23; see Luke 17:6, which talks about moving a sycamore tree by faith).  In Matthew 21:22 and Mark 11:24, Jesus goes on to say that that they will receive whatever they ask in prayer, when they ask in faith.

The speaker was talking about how this relates to our mountains—-financial, spiritual, relational, etc.—-problems that seem so big and insurmountable to us.  He said that God is bigger than our problems.  He also encouraged us to speak to our problems words of faith.  When people ask us how we are doing, we should speak out of faith, not out of discouragement about how things are.

This was a “Word of Faith” sort of sermon.  The speaker actually praised Kenneth Hagin!  Before this speaker preached, the pastor was encouraging people to speak words of faith in the midst of various problems, including layoffs.

The speaker himself was not immune to problems of his own.  He told us about his year-long recovery from cancer, when he absent from church.  He currently uses a cane.

The speaker was critical of commentators and theologians who try to qualify Jesus’ promises in those passages about faith moving mountains, by appealing to other Scriptures, or to what they consider the broader testimony of Scripture.  The speaker said that Jesus does not qualify what he was saying.

At the same time, the speaker himself seemed to go on to qualify what Jesus was saying.  The speaker was saying that life can limit whether we get what we ask for in prayer, which is why we do not always get what we request.  Why did Jesus make such unqualified statements, then, in his opinion?  The speaker said that Jesus was encouraging us to be bold in prayer, to pray as if the sky is the limit, for the sky is the limit for God.

The speaker was saying that words have power.  As an example, the pastor referred to the sinner’s prayer, the acknowledgment of sin and reception of Jesus as Savior that people make to become saved, in many evangelical circles.  Romans 10:9 states that, if one confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, he will be saved.  How can a mere prayer of confession save a person, or transform a person?  I hear this question in various circles: Is that all one has to do to go to heaven—-pray a simple prayer?  But the speaker was saying that praying that prayer is powerful: by speaking those words aloud, they get inside of the person speaking them, and they have a transformative effect.

I have been reading the Bible, at times, before I go to bed.  I was going through the Gospel of Mark recently, and I noticed something else that Jesus said, right after Jesus had said that faith can move mountains and that whatever the disciples ask for in prayer, by faith, will be theirs.   “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.  But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses” (Mark 11:25-26, KJV).  The speaker did not mention this, but it is apparently part of the equation.  I have long struggled with this concept in the Bible, and, in this post, I do not want to get into whether I like this concept, or whether I feel that I have technically met this requirement according to God’s satisfaction.  God knows my heart and where I am!  What I would like to note, though, is that God does not just want us to have faith that moves mountains: God also wants us to think about other people, to regard them as people of value, and that entails forgiveness.

And, often, bitterness and unforgiveness can be a mountain that we need faith to move!  Jesus in Luke 17:6 talks about faith moving a sycamore tree right after exhorting his disciples to forgive others seven times a day, if necessary!  The disciples heard what Jesus said about forgiveness and asked Jesus to increase their faith!  They apparently felt overwhelmed with the requirement to forgive so often, as if they by themselves lacked the power to do so.  Jesus then told them that faith the size of a mustard seed can move a sycamore tree.  (I attribute this insight to Derek Leman, whose Daily D’Var I receive.)

In this post, I do not want to get too deeply into the teachings of the Word of Faith movement.  I am still rather skeptical that the sinner’s prayer by itself transforms people, since there are plenty who have said it who seem rather carnal, or just plain mean!  Still, I did receive lessons of value from that church service last Sunday: about holding on to God in faith during storms, and about not letting storms have the last word in terms of one’s attitude and perspective.  Joel Osteen calls it standing up on the inside.  With God in the picture, there are possibilities.

Church Write-Up: Memorials and Skeptics

I visited two churches last Sunday.  I will write about one service today, and the other service tomorrow.

The first church that I visited last Sunday had a guest speaker, since the pastor was away.  This person belongs to the congregation, and I think he is a lawyer.  Last Sunday was Memorial Day, so he was talking about memorials in the Bible.

Here are some points that he made, along with my thoughts:

A. The speaker talked about II Peter 1:16-21. This passage talks about the transfiguration, in which Peter, James, and John saw Jesus’ glory, and a voice from heaven told them that Jesus is God’s son and that they should listen to him.  But the passage goes on to say that the Scriptures are a surer word of prophecy, presumably surer than the transfiguration.

I remember a conversation that I had in college with a Christian who was in the process of deconverting from Christianity.  At least that was the end result of his search: he became an agnostic.  I was talking with him on the phone, and he asked: “How come people in the past saw all these miracles, and all we get is a book?”

I think that is a good question.  At the same time, I do appreciate the Bible.  In my opinion, when we want to learn about God, we can go to the Bible and read about him.  God has given us something tangible and accessible to feed upon for spiritual nourishment on a regular basis: the Bible.  Miracles are probably good for periodic encouragement, but the Bible is good for the long haul.

B. The speaker then talked about how the rainbow is a sign that God will never again flood the earth. The speaker made clear, though, that God will one day destroy the earth by fire, in accordance with II Peter 3:7, 10.

In college, an atheist friend of mine was reading the Bible, and the Flood story puzzled him, a bit.  In the Flood story, God promised never again to destroy the earth by water.  Yet, according to II Peter 3:10, God will destroy the earth by fire.  What value is God’s promise to Noah, my atheist friend wondered, if God is going to destroy the earth anyway?

Again, a good question.  During the service, I was thinking about this interaction.  My mind went to something that C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity: that there will come a time when the play comes to an end, and the author goes out to take his bow before the audience.   God’s promise to Noah applies to human history.  But God’s eschatological plans transcend human history: they concern the end of human history.  Maybe that response is unsatisfactory, but I think that there is something to it, even if it needs to be developed, somewhat.

C. The speaker was talking about his legal work.  He said that there are cases in which a person can break the law inadvertently, and the person will be considered innocent in a court of law.  For example, suppose that a man is pretending to be a police officer and tells someone to do something that may be technically illegal.  The person who obeys the pretend police officer will be declared innocent in court, because he thought that he was obeying an actual police officer.  I may be mangling some details, but the speaker said something to that effect.

I do not know how that point actually fit into his sermon, but I somewhat liked it.  I have attended conservative Christian churches in the past, and the pastor says something like, “You can be sincere, but sincerely wrong!”  His idea is that God will condemn people to hell who are sincerely wrong, especially if they have the “wrong” religion.  Well, at least our judicial system takes into consideration people’s sincerity and motivations in deciding whether to pass judgment, in certain cases.  It was refreshing to hear the speaker point that out.

D. The speaker was saying that, in order to be transformed, we need to acknowledge our need for a Savior.  We need to realize that we are sinners, and we need to receive God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

Of course, the speaker was bringing into the equation that God is perfect and, in order to be in God’s presence, we need to be covered with the perfect righteousness of Christ, almost as if God needs to be appeased before he has anything to do with us.

Still, the way that the speaker phrased the Gospel intrigued me, somewhat.  For us to be transformed, we need to recognize our flaws.  I was thinking that maybe the Gospel is as it is to educate and to transform us, not so much to appease God.  God wants us to have insights that can transform our character.  Which is more conducive to good character: pride, or a humble recognition of our flaws?  The latter, I think.  Why is it that God in the Old Testament had a decorum for people to enter his presence, or for God to dwell among them?  Because God wanted to impress on their minds God’s holiness: that God is above them, that God is not just one of the fellas but is set apart, that God is majestic.  Believing in a power greater than oneself can also lead to good character.