Posts
Todd Wilson and Gerald Hiestand, ed. Becoming a Pastor Theologian: New Possibilities for Church Leadership. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Todd Wilson and Gerald Hiestand co-wrote a book entitled The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision. The book Becoming a Pastor Theologian,
which they edit, includes essays by scholars about the role that
theology can play in the life of the church. In short, can the academic
study of theology perform a practical function in the lives of
Christians, or is it an arcane, esoteric enterprise?
In this review, I will comment on the essays.
Peter J. Leithart, “The Pastor Theologian as Biblical Theologian: From the Church for the Church.”
This is a strong first chapter. Leithart performs a scholarly
analysis and interpretation of Revelation 17, then he shows how his
insights about the chapter can be employed homiletically.
James K.A. Smith, “The Pastor Theologian as Political Theologian: Ministry Amidst the Earthly City.”
For Smith, Augustine’s thoughts are relevant to the question of how
Christianity should relate to the political realm. Smith is critical of
blaming Augustine for “Holy Roman Empire”-ism, noting that Augustine
differentiated between “the earthly city and the city of God” (page
35). Smith should have addressed the view, however, that Augustine
advocated the state persecution of heretics; as it stands, the chapter
appears rather rosy. Smith also discusses Augustine’s correspondence
with Boniface, an African governor and a Roman general who had an
interest in Christianity. Augustine offered theological justifications
for Boniface’s participation in war, maintaining that Boniface’s work
was necessary to keep Christians, and others, safe.
Kevin Vanhoozer, “The Pastor Theologian as Public Theologian.”
Speaking for myself, I identified with what Vanhoozer said on pages
41-42: “Most scholars are specialists who know about a little, but are
tongue tied when it comes to the big questions.” I also liked
Vanhoozer’s reference to Neil Plantinga’s advice that pastors read at
least one novel a year, as part of their quest “to understand culture
and people” (page 46).
Gerald Hiestand, “The Pastor Theologian as Ecclesial Theologian.”
On page 61, Hiestand offers specific examples of how academic topics
about the Bible and theology can be employed in a practical church
context.
Todd Wilson, “The Pastor Theologian as Cruciform Theologian.”
On page 73, Wilson talks about how his own trials and experiences enabled him to understand and appreciate the Bible better.
Scott M. Manetsch, “Pastoral and Theological Leadership in Calvin’s Geneva.”
According to Manetsch, ministers in John Calvin’s Geneva were
expected to study, and ministers were supposed to gather with other
ministers so that none of them would fall into heresy! That sounds like
too much group-think for my taste! Still, Manetsch did an effective
job in gleaning practical application and insights from Calvin’s Geneva.
Philip Graham Ryken, “Thomas Boston as Pastor Theologian.”
Thomas Boston lived from 1676 to 1732, and he was a Presbyterian
pastor in Scotland. This chapter covers Boston’s use of the Scriptures
in his preaching and lectures, his personal trials, and his views on the
sacraments. This was my favorite chapter in the book, since it
resonated with the part of me that enjoys reading about the Puritans.
Ryken says that half of the typical sermon that Boston delivered
concerned how to apply Scripture to the Christian life, and that made me
think of Jonathan Edwards’ extensive sermons. Yet, Boston was more
succinct than many preachers of his day: he would follow an hour glass,
and, when a half hour had passed, he would put an “X” in his manuscript
to mark where he would begin the following Sunday! On the sacraments,
Boston in one quote seemed to come close to supporting
transubstantiation, which struck me as odd, for a Presbyterian. Boston
also had noteworthy views on baptism, as he opposed private baptisms and
refused to baptize ill babies lest baptism become a superstitious
rite. Boston himself was aware of the pain surrounding infant
mortality, however, for he lost six children.
Chris Castaldo, “The Pastor Theologian as Mentor: The Legacy of John Henry Newman.”
Castaldo shares that writing about Newman was his Plan B, in terms of
this chapter. Castaldo originally wanted to write about Martin Bucer,
as Castaldo notes that Bucer mentored John Calvin in pastoral ministry.
Part of me wonders if we could have done without that information about
Castaldo’s writing process, and yet Castaldo’s reference to Bucer’s
mentorship of Calvin did enhance the chapter, as it showed that
mentoring played a key role in who John Calvin became. Castaldo’s
discussion of Newman had interesting details: Newman’s problem with
Oxford’s system “in which academic tutors were mere lecturers who
scarcely knew their students,” and his collaborative work to move the
system towards mentoring (page 113); Newman’s disagreement with
evangelicals who defined justification merely as imputation, and how
that related to mentoring; and Newman’s conceptualization of conversion
as an intensely personal act, in which God’s heart speaks to the
person’s heart. That latter point was noteworthy, considering the
communitarian subject-matter of this chapter.
Joel D. Lawrence, “The Eccleasial Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.”
Bonhoeffer, like Barth, thought that theology should be for the
church. Barth, after all, called his multi-volume work of theology
“Kirchliche Dogmatik,” or Church Dogmatics! On page 131, Lawrence
discusses Bonhoeffer’s time at Union Theological Seminary in New York
City. Lawrence states: “Here, Bonhoeffer saw the theological limpness
of the American liberal tradition in the mainline churches but
experienced the passionate preaching of the Gospel in the Abyssinian
Baptist Church in Harlem, an African-American congregation that gave him
a vision of the church that he’d never experienced in Europe.”
Lawrence did not provide substantial detail about this, but what he said
made me curious about the influence of the African-American church on
Bonhoeffer.
Edward W. Klink III, “The Pastor Theologian and the Interpretation of Scripture: A Call for Ecclesial Exegesis.”
I liked this chapter more than I expected. Klink elegantly defends a
Christian theological reading of the Bible, as opposed to a
historical-critical reading that atomizes the text, arguably depriving
individual texts of their larger canonical or theological context.
Klink actually says that the atomist historical-critical approach is
eisegesis, a charge that atomist historical-critics usually apply to
Christian theological readings! Klink attempts to account theologically
for a tension between John 3:22 and 4:2, which appear to be
contradictory on the question of whether Jesus baptized anyone. Klink’s
explanation struck me as rather forced, yet his approach of seeking
theological edification in the “errors” of Scripture (not that he would
necessarily call them “errors”) intrigued me, as do rabbinic and
patristic attempts to do so. Klink also provides a helpful discussion
of the idea that Scripture is perspicuous: for Klink, that does not mean
that a biblical text’s meaning is obvious, but rather it relates to the
role of Scripture in speaking to and changing a human being, with the
Holy Spirit’s illumination.
Jason A. Nicholls, “The Pastor Theologian in the Pastoral Epistles.”
The Pastoral Epistles are I-II Timothy and Titus. What stood out to
me in this chapter was Nicholl’s contrast between the pastorate,
including the pastorate in the Pastoral Epistles, with academia. To
give you a taste, from page 155: “Thus, when Paul advises Timothy to
‘silence’ (or literally ‘muzzle’) his theological opponents, we can
imagine that this probably wouldn’t fly before a tenure committee! Yet
within the context of local church discipline, exercised faithfully
under the authority of qualified elders, such censure would be quite
appropriate. In fact, the integrity and health of God’s flock depends
on it.”
Laurie L. Norris, “The Female Ecclesial Theologian.”
Norris contends against the tendency of theological discussions to
exclude women. She argues that the fact that women, too, are made in
God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) means that they have insight about God, as
men do. She maintains that conservative Christians can exclude women
from the pastorate on what they believe are biblical grounds, while
still welcoming women’s theological insights.
Josh Chatraw, “The Pastor Theologian as Apologist.”
What I liked about this chapter was the digs against apologetics,
from both academics and also prominent church thinkers, such as Barth,
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Abraham Kuyper. To quote from page 177: “In the
academy, apologist signals either a glibness that ignores
complexity in favor of easy answers or a failure to play the part of a
disinterested neutral observer—-or both.” Chatraw acknowledges that
there have been cases of bad apologetics, and he exhorts Christians to
let I Peter 3:15 to speak with its own voice, rather than jumping the
gun and assuming that it is speaking about modern apologetics. Chatraw
thinks that apologetics can have fruitful potential, if done humbly and
with the right emphasis. He cites Tim Keller as an example of a “pastor
theologian as apologist” (to quote the title of the chapter).
Eric C. Redmond, “The Pastor Theologian as Giver of Wisdom.”
This chapter was about the importance of wisdom literature, such as
Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and how it can be preached within a larger
theological context.
Douglas Estes, “John as Pastor Theologian: 2 John as Creative Theological Ecriture.”
Estes observes that II John creatively applies and adapts biblical
passages about love: John “recreates the meaning of the original
commandment in a new form” (page 198). To quote Estes (from page 198):
“Whereas the law suggests that loving God comes alongside obeying God’s
commands, John synthesizes these two ideas and suggests that loving God is
obeying God’s commands. In fact, we can trace the development of
John’s theology from obeying God’s commands as a condition of loving God
(Jn 14:15), to obeying God’s commands as the definition of love God
desires (1 Jn 5:3), to love being the action of walking in God’s
commands” (2 Jn 6).” These are interesting observations, as I enjoy
discussions about the diversity of Scripture. Estes’ discussion here
would have been better, however, had he explained more the implications
of this development, what it entailed, and why it occurred. How are
these ideas different from each other, and what is at stake? Estes’
discussion of antichrist in II John was especially effective, as Estes
explained how denying that Jesus came in the flesh undermined
significant Christian doctrines, and thus deserved the label of
antichrist!
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Saturday, December 17, 2016
Friday, December 16, 2016
Church Write-Up: God Uses the Weak?
At church last Sunday, the pastor used Micah 5:2 as a
starting-point. The passage states: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee
shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings
forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (KJV).
The pastor, like a number of Christians, interprets Micah 5:2 to be a prophecy about Jesus. The pastor’s point was that God used what was small, in this case Bethlehem, for a significant work, namely, the birth of the Messiah.
I have heard such a message within Christianity before, and I have struggled with it on this blog. Do I believe this message? Do I reject it as untrue? Do I believe it, sort of? Do I believe it, albeit in a different way than I used to believe it?
I was in a Bible study group years ago, and the group’s leader told us about a stirring preacher he heard at a Promise Keepers rally. The leader says that he bets that preacher used to be a meek and timid fellow, sitting in the back row at church! The leader’s point was that God uses the seemingly insignificant, so that God can get the glory.
I do not doubt that this can happen. I just don’t think it is absolutely true. If a person has natural talent, intelligence, looks, and charisma, and that person becomes a preacher, then he or she will probably get a bigger church than someone lacking in natural talent, intelligence, looks, and charisma. My suspicion is that the way of the church is not too different from the way of the world, in this respect. God uses the weak for his glory? It often seems as if God uses the strong! Or, more accurately, the strong are the ones who appear to be successful in Christianity—-successful in such things as drawing numbers.
Yet, there are other considerations. The pastor was saying that he depends on God in preparing and delivering sermons, so that his sermons will be understandable to the congregation. The pastor is one whom I would characterize as “strong”: he has strong opinions, he is a dynamic speaker, he is witty and funny, he manifests confidence. Yet, he acknowledges that he is weak and needs God to help him craft and deliver sermons.
The pastor was also talking about how we do not need to be in the forefront for God to use us. There are people who work behind the scenes, and their work is necessary. Moreover, the pastor said that the seemingly small things that we do can be used by God to influence profoundly a person’s life. The church is having a toy drive for Christmas, and the pastor said that a child receiving a toy from the church may decide to commit to Christ. I believe that these are important and relevant considerations.
The pastor, like a number of Christians, interprets Micah 5:2 to be a prophecy about Jesus. The pastor’s point was that God used what was small, in this case Bethlehem, for a significant work, namely, the birth of the Messiah.
I have heard such a message within Christianity before, and I have struggled with it on this blog. Do I believe this message? Do I reject it as untrue? Do I believe it, sort of? Do I believe it, albeit in a different way than I used to believe it?
I was in a Bible study group years ago, and the group’s leader told us about a stirring preacher he heard at a Promise Keepers rally. The leader says that he bets that preacher used to be a meek and timid fellow, sitting in the back row at church! The leader’s point was that God uses the seemingly insignificant, so that God can get the glory.
I do not doubt that this can happen. I just don’t think it is absolutely true. If a person has natural talent, intelligence, looks, and charisma, and that person becomes a preacher, then he or she will probably get a bigger church than someone lacking in natural talent, intelligence, looks, and charisma. My suspicion is that the way of the church is not too different from the way of the world, in this respect. God uses the weak for his glory? It often seems as if God uses the strong! Or, more accurately, the strong are the ones who appear to be successful in Christianity—-successful in such things as drawing numbers.
Yet, there are other considerations. The pastor was saying that he depends on God in preparing and delivering sermons, so that his sermons will be understandable to the congregation. The pastor is one whom I would characterize as “strong”: he has strong opinions, he is a dynamic speaker, he is witty and funny, he manifests confidence. Yet, he acknowledges that he is weak and needs God to help him craft and deliver sermons.
The pastor was also talking about how we do not need to be in the forefront for God to use us. There are people who work behind the scenes, and their work is necessary. Moreover, the pastor said that the seemingly small things that we do can be used by God to influence profoundly a person’s life. The church is having a toy drive for Christmas, and the pastor said that a child receiving a toy from the church may decide to commit to Christ. I believe that these are important and relevant considerations.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Book Write-Up: Evangelism for Non-Evangelists, by Mark R. Teasdale
Mark R. Teasdale. Evangelism for Non-Evangelists: Sharing the Gospel Authentically. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Mark R. Teasdale teaches evangelism at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, which is in Evanston, Illinois.
If you are reading this book and expect it to be a how-to on how you can share your faith, then you will be disappointed. Teasdale acknowledges on pages 108-109: “I hope it is clear by now that I am not arguing for the adoption of specific practices of evangelism but providing insights that help us navigate the often tricky route of putting our evangelism into practice.”
Teasdale’s method of evangelism, in my opinion, is best summarized on page 141, where Teasdale refers to his “insistence on holding evangelism and [spiritual] formation together rather than treating them independently.”
Teasdale is not offering canned device about how to sell the Gospel. Rather, he is talking about Christians clarifying to themselves what they authentically believe, being willing to learn from others, living an alternative lifestyle of giving that can attract people’s attention and admiration, and inviting people to a Christian community where Christ’s love is shared.
Part of me would have preferred a how-to book, but I wonder: Would I really? Would I prefer an approach that gives Christians a script to read? Would I prefer an approach that stereotypes the people to whom Christians evangelize, as if life is that neat? Teasdale’s approach is more authentic, and it values authenticity.
Teasdale discusses the historic Enlightenment barriers to evangelicalism: how the Enlightenment treated religion as a private pleasure or preference, while prioritizing what could be supported by senses or reason. Teasdale also talks about postmodernism and where he believes it can be an asset and a liability to evangelism. On page 49, Teasdale depicts God as loving and kind, one who is non-violent and will not establish the Kingdom of God by force. After reading that, I wondered how Teasdale would address Bible passages that seem to suggest otherwise!
In light of the above, part of me wishes that this book had more of an apologetic element. But I wonder: Do I really? Do I want to read a rehash of the same canned answers and arguments, as if these answers and arguments are infallible? Maybe Teasdale does well to present Christianity as a narrative and a lifestyle that is lived, a narrative and a lifestyle that impacts Christians and that Christians can invite others to join. I somewhat like Teasdale’s chapter on how Christians can clarify to themselves what they believe, and why, for, while it has Christian parameters, it is rather open-ended, in areas.
I should add: While apologetics is not a significant element in this book, Teasdale does appeal to anecdotal evidence for the supernatural.
Rather than being a how-to book on evangelism, the book is more about the attitude and the approach that Christians should have in evangelism. I value this book for what it is, rather than heavily criticizing it for what it isn’t.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Mark R. Teasdale teaches evangelism at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, which is in Evanston, Illinois.
If you are reading this book and expect it to be a how-to on how you can share your faith, then you will be disappointed. Teasdale acknowledges on pages 108-109: “I hope it is clear by now that I am not arguing for the adoption of specific practices of evangelism but providing insights that help us navigate the often tricky route of putting our evangelism into practice.”
Teasdale’s method of evangelism, in my opinion, is best summarized on page 141, where Teasdale refers to his “insistence on holding evangelism and [spiritual] formation together rather than treating them independently.”
Teasdale is not offering canned device about how to sell the Gospel. Rather, he is talking about Christians clarifying to themselves what they authentically believe, being willing to learn from others, living an alternative lifestyle of giving that can attract people’s attention and admiration, and inviting people to a Christian community where Christ’s love is shared.
Part of me would have preferred a how-to book, but I wonder: Would I really? Would I prefer an approach that gives Christians a script to read? Would I prefer an approach that stereotypes the people to whom Christians evangelize, as if life is that neat? Teasdale’s approach is more authentic, and it values authenticity.
Teasdale discusses the historic Enlightenment barriers to evangelicalism: how the Enlightenment treated religion as a private pleasure or preference, while prioritizing what could be supported by senses or reason. Teasdale also talks about postmodernism and where he believes it can be an asset and a liability to evangelism. On page 49, Teasdale depicts God as loving and kind, one who is non-violent and will not establish the Kingdom of God by force. After reading that, I wondered how Teasdale would address Bible passages that seem to suggest otherwise!
In light of the above, part of me wishes that this book had more of an apologetic element. But I wonder: Do I really? Do I want to read a rehash of the same canned answers and arguments, as if these answers and arguments are infallible? Maybe Teasdale does well to present Christianity as a narrative and a lifestyle that is lived, a narrative and a lifestyle that impacts Christians and that Christians can invite others to join. I somewhat like Teasdale’s chapter on how Christians can clarify to themselves what they believe, and why, for, while it has Christian parameters, it is rather open-ended, in areas.
I should add: While apologetics is not a significant element in this book, Teasdale does appeal to anecdotal evidence for the supernatural.
Rather than being a how-to book on evangelism, the book is more about the attitude and the approach that Christians should have in evangelism. I value this book for what it is, rather than heavily criticizing it for what it isn’t.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Book Write-Up: God's Devil, by Erwin W. Lutzer
Erwin W. Lutzer. God’s Devil: The Incredible Story of How Satan’s Rebellion Serves God’s Purposes. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2015. See here to buy the book.
God’s Devil is about the origin of the devil, his motivations and agenda, and his work and capabilities. The book also covers spiritual warfare, the ways that God uses the devil, the question of whether the devil can possess believers, and eschatology.
There are parts of the book that are rather speculative, yet they are sensible. Erwin Lutzer tends to psychoanalyze the devil in describing what he believes are the devil’s motivations. Lutzer fails to engage biblical scholarship about how the Satan was a prosecuting attorney in the Hebrew Bible and later became conceptualized as God’s arch-enemy, as Lutzer sees the Satan as God’s archenemy throughout the Bible. This does tend to close Lutzer off from alternative explanations of Satan’s motivations. At the same time, from the standpoint of a Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and details about the devil in the New Testament, Lutzer’s speculations about the devil’s motivations are reasonable: that the devil wanted his own kingdom out of pride, that the devil seeks to destroy or rule God’s creation, that the devil is envious of human beings on account of the mercy God shows to them and the glory God desires for them, and that the devil aims to alienate people from God.
Lutzer is also speculative when it comes to the devil’s capabilities, as when he denies that the devil can read people’s mind, be in more than one place at once, and create life. Yet, Lutzer’s speculations are sensible here, since the devil is a created being, not God.
Although there is speculation in the book, there are plenty of points that Lutzer supports with Scripture. While Lutzer denies that the devil can read people’s minds, he still notes that, according to Jesus’ Parable of the Sower, the devil can take the word of God out of people’s hearts (Mark 4:15), meaning that the devil has some influence on people’s hearts. Lutzer denies that demons can possess believers, yet he thinks that demons can oppress and influence believers, and some of what Lutzer describes sounds close to possession. Lutzer refers to Acts 5:3, in which Peter says that Satan filled Ananias and influenced him to lie to the Holy Spirit. Lutzer’s argument that giving into sin can provide the devil with a foothold in a believer’s life is consistent with Scripture, for Ephesians 4:26-27 warns that sinful anger can provide the devil with a foothold.
Lutzer also shows from Scripture, particularly the New Testament, that God can use the devil to discipline believers and to purify them.
The book says a lot of things that Christians have said before, yet there were occasions when I gleaned from it a fresh insight about Scripture (fresh for me, at least), or when Lutzer addressed intriguing questions. Lutzer interacts with the question of how the devil could try to discourage Jesus from going to the cross, only later to participate in instigating Jesus’ death. For the sake of thoroughness in examining this issue, Lutzer perhaps should have addressed I Corinthians 2:8, which presents the rulers of this age (arguably supernatural beings) as ignorant when they crucified the Lord of glory. Lutzer still does well, however to address how Satan could oppose then support Jesus going to the cross.
Lutzer also asks when exactly Jesus bore people’s sins, and, on the basis of Deuteronomy 21:23, he concludes that Jesus did so right on the cross, not before that time (i.e., not in Gethsemane or when he started wearing the crown of thorns). On the basis of Galatians 5:16, Lutzer contends that believers need the Holy Spirit in order to abstain from fleshly desire, which is different from saying that they need to starve the flesh before they can walk in the Spirit. Lutzer is also unafraid to take possibly unconventional stances: he argues, for example, that the devil is still in heaven, whereas there are many believers who think the devil is in hell right now, or has already been cast out of heaven. In addition, Lutzer denies that the devil will rule in hell, saying instead that God rules there, and that the devil will be punished in hell, like its other inhabitants.
The book is pastoral, in the sense that Lutzer offers compassionate and sensible advice. To those who are afraid of the devil harming them, Lutzer says that the devil is under the sovereignty of God. Lutzer also talks about how commitment to the truth of the Word of God can cleanse a person and serve as a basis for saying “no” to the devil. Lutzer illustrates many points with anecdotes.
Lutzer leans heavily on God’s free grace, as when he says that believers need not strive to appease God, for Christ has already appeased God on their behalf. Lutzer says that our righteousness does not make us more pleasing to God on good days, and our struggles on bad days do not make us more displeasing to God, for believers are accepted by God on the basis of the blood of Christ. Moreover, Lutzer believes that believers who are influenced by the devil are still saved, even if they have fallen into spiritual pits. At the same time, obedience to God is a prominent theme in this book. Lutzer criticizes Cain for trying to please God on his own terms rather than out of obedience. Lutzer also talks about how sin can open the door for the devil, and how obedience and commitment to God can provide one with power against the demonic, which would be lacking if a person were not under God’s authority. And Lutzer maintains that the cross of Christ transforms the believer, not just offers believers forgiveness: “The cross was not merely to clean the impure water that comes from the fountain, but to fundamentally change the nature of the fountain itself” (page 200). Lutzer perhaps could have integrated his feel-good grace message with his obedience message better than he did, but he still made thoughtful points.
I had slight areas of disagreement. Lutzer criticizes one woman for rebelling against church authority, which was somewhat of a turn-off to me; at the same time, Lutzer told a compelling story about how he refused to obey a cult leader who was on a power trip. Lutzer says that God’s rules on sex are for our well-being and happiness, and I wondered if that were truly the case for homosexuals who are pressured by conservative Christians to remain celibate for the rest of their lives. On page 178, Lutzer refers to I Corinthians 7:5’s advice that couples limit the duration of their celibacy, so that Satan might not tempt them. Would not such realistic advice be relevant to the debate over whether homosexual Christians should be celibate for the rest of their natural lives? I am not criticizing Lutzer for his stance on same-sex relationships, as if I expect him to have a different stance. I just have doubts about whether his stance accords with reality in the world.
As is the case with all of Lutzer’s books that I have read thus far, this book has a warm, inviting style. Lutzer is an effective teacher and communicator.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
God’s Devil is about the origin of the devil, his motivations and agenda, and his work and capabilities. The book also covers spiritual warfare, the ways that God uses the devil, the question of whether the devil can possess believers, and eschatology.
There are parts of the book that are rather speculative, yet they are sensible. Erwin Lutzer tends to psychoanalyze the devil in describing what he believes are the devil’s motivations. Lutzer fails to engage biblical scholarship about how the Satan was a prosecuting attorney in the Hebrew Bible and later became conceptualized as God’s arch-enemy, as Lutzer sees the Satan as God’s archenemy throughout the Bible. This does tend to close Lutzer off from alternative explanations of Satan’s motivations. At the same time, from the standpoint of a Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and details about the devil in the New Testament, Lutzer’s speculations about the devil’s motivations are reasonable: that the devil wanted his own kingdom out of pride, that the devil seeks to destroy or rule God’s creation, that the devil is envious of human beings on account of the mercy God shows to them and the glory God desires for them, and that the devil aims to alienate people from God.
Lutzer is also speculative when it comes to the devil’s capabilities, as when he denies that the devil can read people’s mind, be in more than one place at once, and create life. Yet, Lutzer’s speculations are sensible here, since the devil is a created being, not God.
Although there is speculation in the book, there are plenty of points that Lutzer supports with Scripture. While Lutzer denies that the devil can read people’s minds, he still notes that, according to Jesus’ Parable of the Sower, the devil can take the word of God out of people’s hearts (Mark 4:15), meaning that the devil has some influence on people’s hearts. Lutzer denies that demons can possess believers, yet he thinks that demons can oppress and influence believers, and some of what Lutzer describes sounds close to possession. Lutzer refers to Acts 5:3, in which Peter says that Satan filled Ananias and influenced him to lie to the Holy Spirit. Lutzer’s argument that giving into sin can provide the devil with a foothold in a believer’s life is consistent with Scripture, for Ephesians 4:26-27 warns that sinful anger can provide the devil with a foothold.
Lutzer also shows from Scripture, particularly the New Testament, that God can use the devil to discipline believers and to purify them.
The book says a lot of things that Christians have said before, yet there were occasions when I gleaned from it a fresh insight about Scripture (fresh for me, at least), or when Lutzer addressed intriguing questions. Lutzer interacts with the question of how the devil could try to discourage Jesus from going to the cross, only later to participate in instigating Jesus’ death. For the sake of thoroughness in examining this issue, Lutzer perhaps should have addressed I Corinthians 2:8, which presents the rulers of this age (arguably supernatural beings) as ignorant when they crucified the Lord of glory. Lutzer still does well, however to address how Satan could oppose then support Jesus going to the cross.
Lutzer also asks when exactly Jesus bore people’s sins, and, on the basis of Deuteronomy 21:23, he concludes that Jesus did so right on the cross, not before that time (i.e., not in Gethsemane or when he started wearing the crown of thorns). On the basis of Galatians 5:16, Lutzer contends that believers need the Holy Spirit in order to abstain from fleshly desire, which is different from saying that they need to starve the flesh before they can walk in the Spirit. Lutzer is also unafraid to take possibly unconventional stances: he argues, for example, that the devil is still in heaven, whereas there are many believers who think the devil is in hell right now, or has already been cast out of heaven. In addition, Lutzer denies that the devil will rule in hell, saying instead that God rules there, and that the devil will be punished in hell, like its other inhabitants.
The book is pastoral, in the sense that Lutzer offers compassionate and sensible advice. To those who are afraid of the devil harming them, Lutzer says that the devil is under the sovereignty of God. Lutzer also talks about how commitment to the truth of the Word of God can cleanse a person and serve as a basis for saying “no” to the devil. Lutzer illustrates many points with anecdotes.
Lutzer leans heavily on God’s free grace, as when he says that believers need not strive to appease God, for Christ has already appeased God on their behalf. Lutzer says that our righteousness does not make us more pleasing to God on good days, and our struggles on bad days do not make us more displeasing to God, for believers are accepted by God on the basis of the blood of Christ. Moreover, Lutzer believes that believers who are influenced by the devil are still saved, even if they have fallen into spiritual pits. At the same time, obedience to God is a prominent theme in this book. Lutzer criticizes Cain for trying to please God on his own terms rather than out of obedience. Lutzer also talks about how sin can open the door for the devil, and how obedience and commitment to God can provide one with power against the demonic, which would be lacking if a person were not under God’s authority. And Lutzer maintains that the cross of Christ transforms the believer, not just offers believers forgiveness: “The cross was not merely to clean the impure water that comes from the fountain, but to fundamentally change the nature of the fountain itself” (page 200). Lutzer perhaps could have integrated his feel-good grace message with his obedience message better than he did, but he still made thoughtful points.
I had slight areas of disagreement. Lutzer criticizes one woman for rebelling against church authority, which was somewhat of a turn-off to me; at the same time, Lutzer told a compelling story about how he refused to obey a cult leader who was on a power trip. Lutzer says that God’s rules on sex are for our well-being and happiness, and I wondered if that were truly the case for homosexuals who are pressured by conservative Christians to remain celibate for the rest of their lives. On page 178, Lutzer refers to I Corinthians 7:5’s advice that couples limit the duration of their celibacy, so that Satan might not tempt them. Would not such realistic advice be relevant to the debate over whether homosexual Christians should be celibate for the rest of their natural lives? I am not criticizing Lutzer for his stance on same-sex relationships, as if I expect him to have a different stance. I just have doubts about whether his stance accords with reality in the world.
As is the case with all of Lutzer’s books that I have read thus far, this book has a warm, inviting style. Lutzer is an effective teacher and communicator.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Book Write-Up: Insider Jesus, by William A. Dyrness
William A. Dyrness. Insider Jesus: Theological Reflections on New Christian Movements. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
William A. Dyrness teaches theology and culture at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Can a person be a Hindu and a Christian at the same time? How about a Muslim and a Christian? Or a Buddhist and a Christian?
This is not exactly the main topic of the book, Insider Jesus, but it is a significant aspect of the book, in terms of its larger agenda and thesis. Dyrness talks about the phenomenon of people of other cultures embracing aspects of Christianity, yet retaining aspects of their own cultures, in terms of beliefs, practices, communities, and identities. Some of them keep their belief in Jesus a secret. Some gather in groups that they form. Many feel alienated from Western missionaries.
Dyrness’ goal in this book, it seems, is to help provide Western Christians with a constructive way to look at this situation. Dyrness opposes imposing Western ideas on non-Westerners in the name of missions. Dyrness does not really offer specifics on how the Western churches can interact with non-Westerners who embrace the phenomenon that he describes, though he does refer to approaches that Western Christians have taken, some more constructive than others. His hope, however, is to influence Western Christians’ attitudes, which can set the stage for an appropriate and a loving response.
Part of Dyrness’ method is to do what the subtitle of the book says: to offer “theological reflections on new Christian movements.” The Bible plays a paramount role in these reflections. Dyrness argues, from Scripture, that God engages people where they are, that religion is a part of the human search for God, and that God works through culture. A key idea in Dyrness’ theological reflections is that God’s goal is the renewal of the earth, and Dyrness believes that God’s Spirit is at work in non-Christian cultures to accomplish that.
Dyrness engages questions that Western Christians may have about his view, particularly concerning the special status of Scripture and the church. Does what Dyrness say about the role of the Spirit in non-Christian cultures contradict this special status? Dyrness does not believe so, and he explains why.
The book somewhat falls short in addressing whether the phenomenon that Dyrness describes contradicts Scripture, or primary Christian doctrines. Dyrness does note that there are Hindus and Sikhs who receive Christ and worship according to Hindu or Sikh rites, while repudiating idolatry. A repudiation of idolatry would be consistent with Scripture. But do the Muslims who embrace Christ also accept the Trinity and see Christ as God? This was not clearly addressed in the book.
And yet, Dyrness was somewhat critical of Western Christians who make orthodoxy the end-all-be-all and thus utterly reject adherents to the phenomenon that he describes. For Dyrness, there are more open and constructive ways to approach the situation.
Some things that I like about the book:
First, overall, Dyrness’ theological reflections make me feel better about studying other religions. Part of me is leery about doing so, since the Bible does condemn idolatry, and Dyrness did not robustly explain how the biblical condemnation of idolatry fits into his theological reflections about other cultures and religions (though there was a brief passage in which Dyrness made an attempt). Still, Dyrness does present effective arguments on the basis of Scripture that support an openness to the wisdom of “pagan” (as in non-Jewish and non-Christian) cultures. Dyrness probably goes further than a lot of other Christian writers in acknowledging parallels and overlaps between “biblical” religion and non-biblical religions, in terms of morality, rather than portraying biblical religions as vastly superior and non-biblical religions as grossly deficient, or immoral. At the same time, Dyrness does seem to present the biblical religions as superior, on some level.
Second, the case studies in the book effectively illustrated the phenomenon that Dyrness is discussing. For instance, there are Buddhists who believe in Christ, seeing Christ as a solution to the human problems that the Buddha identified.
Third, Dyrness’ discussion of Aztec religion was interesting. Drawing on the work of Costa Rican theologian Elsa Tamez, Dyrness talks about the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl (whom my sixth grade teacher called “Captain Q” when we studied the Aztecs). Captain Q “represents the god of life who injures self to bring a new humanity (a fifth creation) into existence” (71). That sounds somewhat like Jesus! During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, around the time that the Spanish invaded, Captain Q was replaced by Huitzilopochtli, a warrior deity, and that coincided with the rise of an Aztec military dictatorship.
I am rather skeptical when Christian apologists argue that non-Christian religions have Christian themes, and that this is one of God’s ways of preaching Christ to them, or of preparing them to accept Christ. In short, these Christian apologists seem to imply that the presence of Christian-like themes in other religions somehow attests to the truth of Christianity. I think that this is projecting Christianity onto other religions, rather than allowing those religions to speak with their own voice. I one time read a Christian apologist who was arguing that Christ (or the theme of a god dying for people’s sins) is in the Hindu religion, and, when I read the Hindu texts that he was citing to support his point, I found that those texts were making a different point from what he said they were making. At the same time, I try to be open-minded, and I realize that different religions can have similar themes and motifs. Maybe that is the case with Aztec religion and Christianity.
The book also had a thoughtful discussion about whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God, surveying Muslim and Christian views on that question. The book helped me better understand John Wesley’s teaching of preventing grace. And it included good quotes, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s statement about the power of the name of Jesus, in whatever context it may appear.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
William A. Dyrness teaches theology and culture at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Can a person be a Hindu and a Christian at the same time? How about a Muslim and a Christian? Or a Buddhist and a Christian?
This is not exactly the main topic of the book, Insider Jesus, but it is a significant aspect of the book, in terms of its larger agenda and thesis. Dyrness talks about the phenomenon of people of other cultures embracing aspects of Christianity, yet retaining aspects of their own cultures, in terms of beliefs, practices, communities, and identities. Some of them keep their belief in Jesus a secret. Some gather in groups that they form. Many feel alienated from Western missionaries.
Dyrness’ goal in this book, it seems, is to help provide Western Christians with a constructive way to look at this situation. Dyrness opposes imposing Western ideas on non-Westerners in the name of missions. Dyrness does not really offer specifics on how the Western churches can interact with non-Westerners who embrace the phenomenon that he describes, though he does refer to approaches that Western Christians have taken, some more constructive than others. His hope, however, is to influence Western Christians’ attitudes, which can set the stage for an appropriate and a loving response.
Part of Dyrness’ method is to do what the subtitle of the book says: to offer “theological reflections on new Christian movements.” The Bible plays a paramount role in these reflections. Dyrness argues, from Scripture, that God engages people where they are, that religion is a part of the human search for God, and that God works through culture. A key idea in Dyrness’ theological reflections is that God’s goal is the renewal of the earth, and Dyrness believes that God’s Spirit is at work in non-Christian cultures to accomplish that.
Dyrness engages questions that Western Christians may have about his view, particularly concerning the special status of Scripture and the church. Does what Dyrness say about the role of the Spirit in non-Christian cultures contradict this special status? Dyrness does not believe so, and he explains why.
The book somewhat falls short in addressing whether the phenomenon that Dyrness describes contradicts Scripture, or primary Christian doctrines. Dyrness does note that there are Hindus and Sikhs who receive Christ and worship according to Hindu or Sikh rites, while repudiating idolatry. A repudiation of idolatry would be consistent with Scripture. But do the Muslims who embrace Christ also accept the Trinity and see Christ as God? This was not clearly addressed in the book.
And yet, Dyrness was somewhat critical of Western Christians who make orthodoxy the end-all-be-all and thus utterly reject adherents to the phenomenon that he describes. For Dyrness, there are more open and constructive ways to approach the situation.
Some things that I like about the book:
First, overall, Dyrness’ theological reflections make me feel better about studying other religions. Part of me is leery about doing so, since the Bible does condemn idolatry, and Dyrness did not robustly explain how the biblical condemnation of idolatry fits into his theological reflections about other cultures and religions (though there was a brief passage in which Dyrness made an attempt). Still, Dyrness does present effective arguments on the basis of Scripture that support an openness to the wisdom of “pagan” (as in non-Jewish and non-Christian) cultures. Dyrness probably goes further than a lot of other Christian writers in acknowledging parallels and overlaps between “biblical” religion and non-biblical religions, in terms of morality, rather than portraying biblical religions as vastly superior and non-biblical religions as grossly deficient, or immoral. At the same time, Dyrness does seem to present the biblical religions as superior, on some level.
Second, the case studies in the book effectively illustrated the phenomenon that Dyrness is discussing. For instance, there are Buddhists who believe in Christ, seeing Christ as a solution to the human problems that the Buddha identified.
Third, Dyrness’ discussion of Aztec religion was interesting. Drawing on the work of Costa Rican theologian Elsa Tamez, Dyrness talks about the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl (whom my sixth grade teacher called “Captain Q” when we studied the Aztecs). Captain Q “represents the god of life who injures self to bring a new humanity (a fifth creation) into existence” (71). That sounds somewhat like Jesus! During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, around the time that the Spanish invaded, Captain Q was replaced by Huitzilopochtli, a warrior deity, and that coincided with the rise of an Aztec military dictatorship.
I am rather skeptical when Christian apologists argue that non-Christian religions have Christian themes, and that this is one of God’s ways of preaching Christ to them, or of preparing them to accept Christ. In short, these Christian apologists seem to imply that the presence of Christian-like themes in other religions somehow attests to the truth of Christianity. I think that this is projecting Christianity onto other religions, rather than allowing those religions to speak with their own voice. I one time read a Christian apologist who was arguing that Christ (or the theme of a god dying for people’s sins) is in the Hindu religion, and, when I read the Hindu texts that he was citing to support his point, I found that those texts were making a different point from what he said they were making. At the same time, I try to be open-minded, and I realize that different religions can have similar themes and motifs. Maybe that is the case with Aztec religion and Christianity.
The book also had a thoughtful discussion about whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God, surveying Muslim and Christian views on that question. The book helped me better understand John Wesley’s teaching of preventing grace. And it included good quotes, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s statement about the power of the name of Jesus, in whatever context it may appear.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Monday, December 12, 2016
Book Write-Up: Taking Pascal's Wager, by Michael Rota
Michael Rota. Taking Pascal’s Wager: Faith, Evidence and the Abundant Life. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Michael Rota teaches philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, which is in St. Paul, Minnesota. In Taking Pascal’s Wager, Rota argues that Pascal’s Wager has viability in encouraging people to believe in God.
Pascal’s Wager is often conceptualized as a bet, in which one looks at the options of believing in God and not believing in God to determine which is more beneficial to oneself, without knowing for certain whether God actually exists. If God does exist and a person embraces God, then that person will gain spiritual health (i.e., hope, inner peace, etc.) in this life and eternal bliss in the afterlife. If God exists and a person rejects God, by contrast, that person will lack spiritual health in this life and will have eternal misery in the afterlife. Suppose that God does not exist, though? Even in that case, a person can have spiritual health by believing in God, and lack spiritual health by thinking that this world is all there is. In short, what does one have to lose by believing in God, or at least seeking God?
Pascal’s Wager, on the surface, can appear to be a selfish calculation, and yet, as Rota argues, it need not be so, for belief in God can encourage one to help others, as well.
In this review, I will look at select chapters and comment on select items.
Chapter 3, “Moral Reservations and the Cost of Commitment,” deserves praise because Rota does attempt to address difficult questions about Pascal’s Wager. Of course, Rota addresses the conventional criticisms of it: that it trivializes faith by making it into a gamble, and a selfish gamble at that, and that it treats blind faith as a virtue rather than, say, kindness or the pursuit of truth. But Rota also interacts with excellent questions. For example, if God is not real, would not a person be wasting his or her time by pursuing devotional activities, rather than other activities during one’s limited time on earth? And suppose that one lived in a country where Christianity was persecuted. Would one do well to believe in Christ then, especially in a scenario in which the Christian God did not exist? In some cases, Rota’s answers are deft and effective; in other cases, he falls back on saying that one should believe because there is a decent chance that the Christian God is real and that one can be separated from God in the afterlife by not believing in God.
A challenge to me in reading this chapter is that Rota seemed to argue that simply believing in God is not enough to gain the benefits of faith in this life: one actually needs to be a good Christian, or, more accurately, a sociable, likable Christian. That can provide a person with social support from the Christian community, and perhaps appease potential persecutors. But, as a person with Asperger’s, I wonder: what if a person believes in God, yet struggles socially? Or what about the many people, period, who struggle in their Christian walk? To his credit, though, Rota in the conclusion does offer practical, albeit brief, spiritual advice about prayer, reading Scripture, and finding a loving Christian community.
Chapter 4, “More Objections to the Wager: Other Religions and Christianity,” addresses a formidable question about the Wager: What about other religions? Objectors have argued that Pascal’s Wager only talks about two choices: Christianity and atheism. Does not the existence of other religions muddy the water, though, by adding other options, with their own benefits and risks? Suppose that one selects Christianity, and it turns out that one had to be a Muslim to enter the good afterlife and avoid hell?
Rota recognizes the gravity of the problem, as is often the case when he deals with detractors of whatever he is defending in this book: Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments for the existence of God, the arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, etc. In a sense, this chapter sets the stage for the rest of the book, in which Rota argues that God exists and that there is a decent likelihood that Christianity is the true religion.
Chapter 5, “Where Did Physical Things Come From?”, was Rota’s explanation and defense (on some level) of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. This chapter had an inviting, lucid tone, and Rota shone in this chapter as a gifted teacher. Rota argued that contingent beings needed to originate from some necessary being, and Rota clearly explains the difference between contingent and necessary beings. To his credit, Rota believes that the cosmological argument has its limits, for he can think of necessary entities other than God that can cause or sustain contingent entities. A slight qualm that I had with this chapter was that Rota said that a necessary being always has to exist: a necessary being cannot exist at some point and later cease to exist, otherwise the being would not fit the definition of a necessary being, who necessarily exists (always has and always will). Rota’s reasoning here appears sensible, yet I wonder if the contrast between necessary and contingent beings has to be so stark. Could not a god or a creative force have always existed has far back into the past as one can go, yet at some point cease to exist? Rota would probably have a decent answer to this question, and I would not defend my question to the end, but it is a question that occurs to me.
Chapters 6 and 8 concern the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God. For Rota, the fine-tuning argument demonstrates that an intelligent being designed the cosmos. Rota’s responses to most of the objections to the fine-tuning argument that he cites are effective, overall. In my opinion, an exception would be his discussion of the multiverse. An objection to the fine-tuning argument is that there are a lot of multiverses out there, many of which lack life, so it is not such a statistical wonder that at least one of those universes came together in such a manner as to support life. Rota did not clearly address that objection. This chapter had a lot of probabilistic equations. Rota said that, if both God and multiverses exist, then there is a greater likelihood that many of those multiverses would have life, for God is a God of purpose and life. That is an interesting point, but it fails to answer the objection. Rota’s ultimate answer seems to be that, apart from a designer, the likelihood of life existing in any universe is minute. I am unclear why that would be the case. Even if Rota addressed that question, he could have been clearer and more direct.
Chapter 9 is entitled “The Beauty and Existential Resonance of Christianity.” Rota argues that Christianity offers a beautiful moral standard while accounting for the reality that we fail to live up to it. Later in the book, in chapter 12, Rota states that it makes sense that a God who exists would hide himself rather than making himself overly obvious—-so that people would believe in him voluntarily and for the right reasons. Rota also states that a God who exists would probably start a church to pass on God’s teaching and assist people to follow it. Rota essentially believes that Christianity is moral and makes sense, that it is the sort of revelation that the fine-tuning necessary being who started the cosmos and cares for it would make. The problem of hell was occurring to me as I read this chapter, though. Would a loving God condemn people in hell, especially when so many people seem to lack the opportunity to embrace God, or Christianity? This question is especially pertinent because the threat of hell looms large in Pascal’s Wager. Perhaps Rota should have given the usual stock responses to that sort of question, and that would have made the book better. I doubt I would have been convinced, though.
Chapter 10, “Counterevidence: Divine Hiddenness and Evil,” was actually an effective chapter, as it discussed the problem of evil. Rota addresses the question of whether the suffering that God permits is overkill, assuming God allows people to suffer to improve them morally and spiritually. Rota essentially asks how we would quantify the appropriate amount of suffering: is any suffering too much? That is not entirely convincing, but it is a thought-provoking response. Rota’s discussion of Van Inwagen’s treatment of suffering was helpful: Inwagen rejected the idea that God is directly responsible for specific acts of suffering, but Inwagen believed that God permits a world in which suffering exists for educative purposes. God does not directly cause a person’s illness for a specific reason that is tailored towards that person, in short, but God permits a world in which illness exists for a general purpose. Rota’s discussion of Eleonore Stump’s interaction with the problem of evil had some edifying aspects, specifically Stump’s discussion of God’s concern about the spiritual and moral health of Cain and God’s attempts to reach out to him. The prominence of hell in this discussion somewhat spoiled it for me, though.
Chapter 11, “Historical Evidence for Christianity: The Resurrection,” contained classical apologetic arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. An advantage to this chapter is that Rota interacts with challenges from detractors to such arguments, such as John Shelby Spong. Rota places some emphasis on the claim that certain church fathers knew the apostles, as well as the Christian creed and appeal to eyewitnesses that Paul cites in I Corinthians 15:3-8. Rota also stresses that Paul believed that the resurrection was bodily, which would be consistent with the Gospels’ presentation of an empty tomb, and would preclude the possibility that the idea of Jesus’ resurrection arose from a mere hallucination. This chapter was all right, and yet I believe that questions can still be asked. What, for example, would Rota do with the second century “Gnostic” Christian teachers who claimed to receive their teaching from someone who knew an apostle, or apostles? While most New Testament scholars reject Robert M. Price’s view that the creed in I Corinthians 15:3-8 was a later interpolation, agreeing with Rota that it was an earlier creed that Paul received, Price, in my opinion, still asks valid questions: if an early creed—-the official creed that the church passed on to new initiates—-mentioned five-hundred witnesses to the risen Jesus, why does no later New Testament Gospel mention that specific appearance of Jesus? And, even if Rota is correct on the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, does that necessarily prove that Christianity is the only divinely-authoritative religion, or that everything Jesus said and taught is true? Are there other possibilities? Could God authorize Christianity, while still revealing Godself in other religions, as well? That brings to mind another criticism I have: Rota defends Christianity without really presenting arguments that other religions are wrong, or deficient. That is significant, in light of the “other religions” argument against Pascal’s Wager.
Before I proceed to the biographical parts of Rota’s book, I want to make a comment about the apologetic element of Rota’s book. It should have had more Pascal: more references to and interaction with Pascal’s thought! Pascal, as Rota knows, did not just present Pascal’s Wager but offered other apologetic arguments, as well. From Phil Fernandes’ 2004 article, “The Apologetic Methodology of Blaise Pascal” (http://www.leaderu.com/apologetics/pascalmethodology.html), I gather that some of Pascal’s arguments coincide with Rota’s approach, whereas others diverge from it. Pascal was leery of the cosmological and teleological arguments, but he probably would have loved Rota’s moral and existential arguments and appeal to beauty. Pascal also employed a historical argument for Christianity, so he overlaps with Rota on this, even though Rota’s arguments are more up-to-date from a scholarly standpoint. Mentioning and interacting with Pascal’s apologetics would have made this book better. Rota could have mentioned and briefly engaged Pascal’s problems with the cosmological and teleological arguments, before justifying his own appeal to them. On historical arguments for Christianity, Rota could have offered a judgment about where Pascal’s historical argument fell short, and how recent scholarship can improve historical arguments for Christianity, or offer better arguments.
The following three chapters are biographical, as they discuss three figures who made a decision for God and found happiness as a result, notwithstanding significant challenges. Chapter 13 is about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Rota talks about how Bonhoeffer in prison had a joyful, loving attitude, and Rota attributed that to Bonhoeffer’s faith. To provide a more rounded portrait, however, Rota should have discussed the view that Bonhoeffer was a Christian atheist, and possible struggles that Bonhoeffer had. This goes back to my critique of Chapter 3: What about Christians who struggle?
Chapter 14 was about Jean Vanier, who left a promising position in academia to work with the developmentally-delayed. This chapter had beautiful things to say about the love that developmentally-delayed people can show, and how those who work with them can feel free to accept themselves in their presence. This coincides with Pascal’s argument that serving God can bring blessings in this life. The picture of working with the developmentally-delayed was rather one-sided, however, for that kind of work can also have its challenges.
Chapter 15 especially spoke to me. It was about Immaculee Ilibagiza’s struggle to forgive, and the things that God told her to help her to forgive. I have been criticizing this book for not acknowledging struggling Christians enough. This chapter was an exception.
Notwithstanding my critiques, I give this book four stars. Rota is an engaging and lucid author, and he wrestles with tough challenges.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Michael Rota teaches philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, which is in St. Paul, Minnesota. In Taking Pascal’s Wager, Rota argues that Pascal’s Wager has viability in encouraging people to believe in God.
Pascal’s Wager is often conceptualized as a bet, in which one looks at the options of believing in God and not believing in God to determine which is more beneficial to oneself, without knowing for certain whether God actually exists. If God does exist and a person embraces God, then that person will gain spiritual health (i.e., hope, inner peace, etc.) in this life and eternal bliss in the afterlife. If God exists and a person rejects God, by contrast, that person will lack spiritual health in this life and will have eternal misery in the afterlife. Suppose that God does not exist, though? Even in that case, a person can have spiritual health by believing in God, and lack spiritual health by thinking that this world is all there is. In short, what does one have to lose by believing in God, or at least seeking God?
Pascal’s Wager, on the surface, can appear to be a selfish calculation, and yet, as Rota argues, it need not be so, for belief in God can encourage one to help others, as well.
In this review, I will look at select chapters and comment on select items.
Chapter 3, “Moral Reservations and the Cost of Commitment,” deserves praise because Rota does attempt to address difficult questions about Pascal’s Wager. Of course, Rota addresses the conventional criticisms of it: that it trivializes faith by making it into a gamble, and a selfish gamble at that, and that it treats blind faith as a virtue rather than, say, kindness or the pursuit of truth. But Rota also interacts with excellent questions. For example, if God is not real, would not a person be wasting his or her time by pursuing devotional activities, rather than other activities during one’s limited time on earth? And suppose that one lived in a country where Christianity was persecuted. Would one do well to believe in Christ then, especially in a scenario in which the Christian God did not exist? In some cases, Rota’s answers are deft and effective; in other cases, he falls back on saying that one should believe because there is a decent chance that the Christian God is real and that one can be separated from God in the afterlife by not believing in God.
A challenge to me in reading this chapter is that Rota seemed to argue that simply believing in God is not enough to gain the benefits of faith in this life: one actually needs to be a good Christian, or, more accurately, a sociable, likable Christian. That can provide a person with social support from the Christian community, and perhaps appease potential persecutors. But, as a person with Asperger’s, I wonder: what if a person believes in God, yet struggles socially? Or what about the many people, period, who struggle in their Christian walk? To his credit, though, Rota in the conclusion does offer practical, albeit brief, spiritual advice about prayer, reading Scripture, and finding a loving Christian community.
Chapter 4, “More Objections to the Wager: Other Religions and Christianity,” addresses a formidable question about the Wager: What about other religions? Objectors have argued that Pascal’s Wager only talks about two choices: Christianity and atheism. Does not the existence of other religions muddy the water, though, by adding other options, with their own benefits and risks? Suppose that one selects Christianity, and it turns out that one had to be a Muslim to enter the good afterlife and avoid hell?
Rota recognizes the gravity of the problem, as is often the case when he deals with detractors of whatever he is defending in this book: Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments for the existence of God, the arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, etc. In a sense, this chapter sets the stage for the rest of the book, in which Rota argues that God exists and that there is a decent likelihood that Christianity is the true religion.
Chapter 5, “Where Did Physical Things Come From?”, was Rota’s explanation and defense (on some level) of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. This chapter had an inviting, lucid tone, and Rota shone in this chapter as a gifted teacher. Rota argued that contingent beings needed to originate from some necessary being, and Rota clearly explains the difference between contingent and necessary beings. To his credit, Rota believes that the cosmological argument has its limits, for he can think of necessary entities other than God that can cause or sustain contingent entities. A slight qualm that I had with this chapter was that Rota said that a necessary being always has to exist: a necessary being cannot exist at some point and later cease to exist, otherwise the being would not fit the definition of a necessary being, who necessarily exists (always has and always will). Rota’s reasoning here appears sensible, yet I wonder if the contrast between necessary and contingent beings has to be so stark. Could not a god or a creative force have always existed has far back into the past as one can go, yet at some point cease to exist? Rota would probably have a decent answer to this question, and I would not defend my question to the end, but it is a question that occurs to me.
Chapters 6 and 8 concern the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God. For Rota, the fine-tuning argument demonstrates that an intelligent being designed the cosmos. Rota’s responses to most of the objections to the fine-tuning argument that he cites are effective, overall. In my opinion, an exception would be his discussion of the multiverse. An objection to the fine-tuning argument is that there are a lot of multiverses out there, many of which lack life, so it is not such a statistical wonder that at least one of those universes came together in such a manner as to support life. Rota did not clearly address that objection. This chapter had a lot of probabilistic equations. Rota said that, if both God and multiverses exist, then there is a greater likelihood that many of those multiverses would have life, for God is a God of purpose and life. That is an interesting point, but it fails to answer the objection. Rota’s ultimate answer seems to be that, apart from a designer, the likelihood of life existing in any universe is minute. I am unclear why that would be the case. Even if Rota addressed that question, he could have been clearer and more direct.
Chapter 9 is entitled “The Beauty and Existential Resonance of Christianity.” Rota argues that Christianity offers a beautiful moral standard while accounting for the reality that we fail to live up to it. Later in the book, in chapter 12, Rota states that it makes sense that a God who exists would hide himself rather than making himself overly obvious—-so that people would believe in him voluntarily and for the right reasons. Rota also states that a God who exists would probably start a church to pass on God’s teaching and assist people to follow it. Rota essentially believes that Christianity is moral and makes sense, that it is the sort of revelation that the fine-tuning necessary being who started the cosmos and cares for it would make. The problem of hell was occurring to me as I read this chapter, though. Would a loving God condemn people in hell, especially when so many people seem to lack the opportunity to embrace God, or Christianity? This question is especially pertinent because the threat of hell looms large in Pascal’s Wager. Perhaps Rota should have given the usual stock responses to that sort of question, and that would have made the book better. I doubt I would have been convinced, though.
Chapter 10, “Counterevidence: Divine Hiddenness and Evil,” was actually an effective chapter, as it discussed the problem of evil. Rota addresses the question of whether the suffering that God permits is overkill, assuming God allows people to suffer to improve them morally and spiritually. Rota essentially asks how we would quantify the appropriate amount of suffering: is any suffering too much? That is not entirely convincing, but it is a thought-provoking response. Rota’s discussion of Van Inwagen’s treatment of suffering was helpful: Inwagen rejected the idea that God is directly responsible for specific acts of suffering, but Inwagen believed that God permits a world in which suffering exists for educative purposes. God does not directly cause a person’s illness for a specific reason that is tailored towards that person, in short, but God permits a world in which illness exists for a general purpose. Rota’s discussion of Eleonore Stump’s interaction with the problem of evil had some edifying aspects, specifically Stump’s discussion of God’s concern about the spiritual and moral health of Cain and God’s attempts to reach out to him. The prominence of hell in this discussion somewhat spoiled it for me, though.
Chapter 11, “Historical Evidence for Christianity: The Resurrection,” contained classical apologetic arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. An advantage to this chapter is that Rota interacts with challenges from detractors to such arguments, such as John Shelby Spong. Rota places some emphasis on the claim that certain church fathers knew the apostles, as well as the Christian creed and appeal to eyewitnesses that Paul cites in I Corinthians 15:3-8. Rota also stresses that Paul believed that the resurrection was bodily, which would be consistent with the Gospels’ presentation of an empty tomb, and would preclude the possibility that the idea of Jesus’ resurrection arose from a mere hallucination. This chapter was all right, and yet I believe that questions can still be asked. What, for example, would Rota do with the second century “Gnostic” Christian teachers who claimed to receive their teaching from someone who knew an apostle, or apostles? While most New Testament scholars reject Robert M. Price’s view that the creed in I Corinthians 15:3-8 was a later interpolation, agreeing with Rota that it was an earlier creed that Paul received, Price, in my opinion, still asks valid questions: if an early creed—-the official creed that the church passed on to new initiates—-mentioned five-hundred witnesses to the risen Jesus, why does no later New Testament Gospel mention that specific appearance of Jesus? And, even if Rota is correct on the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, does that necessarily prove that Christianity is the only divinely-authoritative religion, or that everything Jesus said and taught is true? Are there other possibilities? Could God authorize Christianity, while still revealing Godself in other religions, as well? That brings to mind another criticism I have: Rota defends Christianity without really presenting arguments that other religions are wrong, or deficient. That is significant, in light of the “other religions” argument against Pascal’s Wager.
Before I proceed to the biographical parts of Rota’s book, I want to make a comment about the apologetic element of Rota’s book. It should have had more Pascal: more references to and interaction with Pascal’s thought! Pascal, as Rota knows, did not just present Pascal’s Wager but offered other apologetic arguments, as well. From Phil Fernandes’ 2004 article, “The Apologetic Methodology of Blaise Pascal” (http://www.leaderu.com/apologetics/pascalmethodology.html), I gather that some of Pascal’s arguments coincide with Rota’s approach, whereas others diverge from it. Pascal was leery of the cosmological and teleological arguments, but he probably would have loved Rota’s moral and existential arguments and appeal to beauty. Pascal also employed a historical argument for Christianity, so he overlaps with Rota on this, even though Rota’s arguments are more up-to-date from a scholarly standpoint. Mentioning and interacting with Pascal’s apologetics would have made this book better. Rota could have mentioned and briefly engaged Pascal’s problems with the cosmological and teleological arguments, before justifying his own appeal to them. On historical arguments for Christianity, Rota could have offered a judgment about where Pascal’s historical argument fell short, and how recent scholarship can improve historical arguments for Christianity, or offer better arguments.
The following three chapters are biographical, as they discuss three figures who made a decision for God and found happiness as a result, notwithstanding significant challenges. Chapter 13 is about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Rota talks about how Bonhoeffer in prison had a joyful, loving attitude, and Rota attributed that to Bonhoeffer’s faith. To provide a more rounded portrait, however, Rota should have discussed the view that Bonhoeffer was a Christian atheist, and possible struggles that Bonhoeffer had. This goes back to my critique of Chapter 3: What about Christians who struggle?
Chapter 14 was about Jean Vanier, who left a promising position in academia to work with the developmentally-delayed. This chapter had beautiful things to say about the love that developmentally-delayed people can show, and how those who work with them can feel free to accept themselves in their presence. This coincides with Pascal’s argument that serving God can bring blessings in this life. The picture of working with the developmentally-delayed was rather one-sided, however, for that kind of work can also have its challenges.
Chapter 15 especially spoke to me. It was about Immaculee Ilibagiza’s struggle to forgive, and the things that God told her to help her to forgive. I have been criticizing this book for not acknowledging struggling Christians enough. This chapter was an exception.
Notwithstanding my critiques, I give this book four stars. Rota is an engaging and lucid author, and he wrestles with tough challenges.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Book Write-Up: Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures
Jayson Georges and Mark D. Baker. Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures: Biblical Foundations and Practical Essentials. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Jayson Georges and Mark Baker both have extensive experience in missions and exposure to honor-shame cultures. In Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures, Georges and Baker contrast honor-shame, communal cultures with the more individualistic and guilt-focused (or judicial-focused) Christianity of the West. What Georges and Baker discuss is not only relevant to overseas missions, but also to how Westerners can better interact with those who immigrate to the West from honor-shame cultures.
Georges and Baker are honest about the social faux pas that they have made in their own interactions with people from honor-shame cultures, and they tell stories of other Westerners’ faux pas, as well. I can picture myself making the same faux pas! This book is not only about social faux pas, however, but it is also about approaches that can contribute to better social interaction between Westerners and people from honor-shame cultures. In order to serve and communicate with others, one needs to know what they value. This book has failure stories, but also success stories.
Georges and Baker are not just concerned about minimizing social faux pas and honoring people by respecting their values, but they also criticize the historical tendency of Western missionaries to impose Western ideas on non-Western countries, as if those Western ideas are biblical ideas. Georges and Baker contend that the Gospel can be explained within an honor-shame framework that speaks more clearly to people from honor-shame cultures. Also, they believe that the Bible itself reflects honor-shame presuppositions.
At the same time, Georges and Baker maintain that the Bible diverges from honor-shame presuppositions, in significant areas. Jesus said and did things that went against the honor-shame culture of his day. Within the New Testament, there is an acknowledgment that Christians may find themselves dishonored by the surrounding culture. In such cases, the New Testament does not completely repudiate honor-shame presuppositions but rather emphasizes that Christians are honored by God, even if others dishonor them.
In some cases, Georges and Baker argue, a Westerner may want to avoid obligations of reciprocity that can occur in honor-shame cultures, since such obligations can become burdensome. They offer practical advice on how to go about this in a tactful manner. They also appeal to the apostle Paul, who dodged obligations of reciprocity with the Thessalonian church that helped him by telling them that God honors their gift.
This book is excellent on account of its lucid description of honor-shame cultures, its contrast of honor-shame cultures with Western culture, its illustration of honor and shame in Scripture, its stories, and its practical advice.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Jayson Georges and Mark Baker both have extensive experience in missions and exposure to honor-shame cultures. In Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures, Georges and Baker contrast honor-shame, communal cultures with the more individualistic and guilt-focused (or judicial-focused) Christianity of the West. What Georges and Baker discuss is not only relevant to overseas missions, but also to how Westerners can better interact with those who immigrate to the West from honor-shame cultures.
Georges and Baker are honest about the social faux pas that they have made in their own interactions with people from honor-shame cultures, and they tell stories of other Westerners’ faux pas, as well. I can picture myself making the same faux pas! This book is not only about social faux pas, however, but it is also about approaches that can contribute to better social interaction between Westerners and people from honor-shame cultures. In order to serve and communicate with others, one needs to know what they value. This book has failure stories, but also success stories.
Georges and Baker are not just concerned about minimizing social faux pas and honoring people by respecting their values, but they also criticize the historical tendency of Western missionaries to impose Western ideas on non-Western countries, as if those Western ideas are biblical ideas. Georges and Baker contend that the Gospel can be explained within an honor-shame framework that speaks more clearly to people from honor-shame cultures. Also, they believe that the Bible itself reflects honor-shame presuppositions.
At the same time, Georges and Baker maintain that the Bible diverges from honor-shame presuppositions, in significant areas. Jesus said and did things that went against the honor-shame culture of his day. Within the New Testament, there is an acknowledgment that Christians may find themselves dishonored by the surrounding culture. In such cases, the New Testament does not completely repudiate honor-shame presuppositions but rather emphasizes that Christians are honored by God, even if others dishonor them.
In some cases, Georges and Baker argue, a Westerner may want to avoid obligations of reciprocity that can occur in honor-shame cultures, since such obligations can become burdensome. They offer practical advice on how to go about this in a tactful manner. They also appeal to the apostle Paul, who dodged obligations of reciprocity with the Thessalonian church that helped him by telling them that God honors their gift.
This book is excellent on account of its lucid description of honor-shame cultures, its contrast of honor-shame cultures with Western culture, its illustration of honor and shame in Scripture, its stories, and its practical advice.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)