Archive for category Book Review
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 3 – Toward Shalom: Absorbing the Violence
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Religion and Politics on November 18, 2010
Click to Order
For an introduction to the series, see here.
Elmer A. Martens, a co-editor of this volume and a Professor Emeritus at the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, brings us the second essay which attempts to answer, somewhat, Regina Schwartz‘s book which called for the end of Monotheism. In this essay, Martens attempts to answer the charges against the Cross as a symbol of a violent and uncaring God, but doesn’t exclude the fact that their is violence in Holy Writ, and that God does at times cause it. What is interesting is first his notion of shalom, which while we tend to think that it fits neatly as ‘peace’, really doesn’t, and second, his view of the absorption of violence by the believers, but most notably, by the Cross.
While I enjoyed his theme overall and found him honest in his treatment of Old Testament violence, I found his translation attempts compelling. Admittedly, I know nothing of Hebrew except to find someone who does. In examining his translation of Isaiah 2.2-4, I found that it is allowable. And if it is allowable, it is, well, preachable:
Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war. (Isa 2:2-4 NAU)
Essentially, Martens seeks to translates the eschatological bent out of the English versions and instead, read it prophetically. His demand is that the text is better served as translated, ‘Now, it will come about that whenever…the mountain of the House…many peoples will come….and they will hammer their swords into plowshares…’. Martens contends that this era of peace herein described is attainable now. He goes to write ‘God’s intent is peace’ (p38), and shows throughout his essay that God’s interaction and intervention with humanity is about peace, which culminates in the Incarnation which for all time absorbed the violence of sin.
In the Mail: The Sound of (Methodist) Music….
Posted by Joel in Book Review on November 17, 2010
Thanks to Michael at the University of Illinois press,
Click to Order
From the product description:
Providing new insight into the Wesley family, the fundamental importance of music in the development of Methodism, and the history of art music in Britain, Music and the Wesleys examines more than 150 years of a rich music-making tradition in England. John Wesley and his brother Charles, founders of the Methodist movement, considered music to be a vital part of religion, while Charles’s sons Charles and Samuel and grandson Samuel Sebastian were among the most important English composers of their time. Exploring British concert life, sacred music forms, and hymnology, the contributors analyze the political, cultural, and social history of the Wesleys’ enormous influence on English culture and religious practices. Contributors are Stephen Banfield, Jonathan Barry, Martin V. Clarke, Sally Drage, Peter S. Forsaith, Peter Holman, Peter Horton, Robin A. Leaver, Alyson McLamore, Geoffrey C. Moore, John Nightingale, Philip Olleson, Nicholas Temperley, J. R. Watson, Anne Bagnall Yardley, and Carlton R. Young. Nicholas Temperley is professor emeritus of musicology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the author of The Music of the English Parish Church and other works. Stephen Banfield is Stanley Hugh Badock Professor of Music at the University of Bristol. His books include Sensibility and English Song: Critical Studies of the Early Twentieth Century.
Reflections on Thom Stark’s The Human Faces of God – Part 2
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Inerrancy on November 10, 2010
Click to Order
For the start of the series, start here.
He’s right. When inerrancy is taken to its logical level there is a lack of pure claimants; however, Stark is wrong in assuming that inerrancy is acted out only by biblical literalists (Although he attempts to correct this view, too late in my opinion, on page 40. Of course, since most inerrantists rely on the Chicago Statement which stresses literalism, he has evidence for his assumption.) Today, modern inerrancy is taking on the notion that the bible was delivered correctly, not that everything in it is correct. For example, in discussing inerrancy with others, I use the example of Job’s friends. My friends counter that not everything in the bible is correct, good and true, but it was delivered inerrantly. I think that Stark falls into the same trap with demanding that inerrantists must be biblical literalists, although he does note that new get-arounds are developed from among the community. What inerrantists falter at, he is correct, is that they have created within the canon a smaller canon, and even in that a smaller one than that! Christians no longer listen to the laws proscribed by Leviticus or some of the uglier points in the Prophets. Could I entice you to beg God to destroy the infants of your enemies as the Psalmist did in 137? On the surface, and at the climax of the doctrine, inerrancy leaves you answering only yes. And this is where inspirationists divide from inerrantists, even if they do not know it yet. And here again, he is correct that to counter the growing suspicion that inerrancy is not of the historical faith, and that it creates more problems than it solves, many inerrantists attempt to use other devices to solve their self-created riddles. If, as Stark notes, the same method of producing inerrancy (see his discussion on p18) was used by the Church Fathers, I would imagine that many of them could not have seen Christ so poignantly in the Hebrew Scripture. Inerrancy is not interpretation, but the lack thereof.
There is much to say about interpretation and those who practice the craft, such as biblical mention doesn’t mean divide allowance, but I suspect that this conversation is for another post.
I suspect that if inerrantists who were pastors would remove themselves from the debate, and step back to look at their own sermons, they would fully understand what Stark covers in his discussion on Ancient Jewish Hermeneutics, finding themselves well in line with the interpretative tradition. Interpretation generally didn’t involve what ‘really happened’ but examined what was happening in the now by what happened then. For an example, the Gospel of Matthew. By taking the eleventh chapter of Hosea and comparing it to the life of the young Holy Family, he could see the connection of the two. It was not that Hosea was speaking about Christ or that the Evangelist was examining the story of Exodus through Hosea’s interpretation, but that he saw in Christ and the flight to and from Egypt the events of the now mirrored in the words of the ancient prophet. Stark is right in pointing out that,
Interpretation was not a careful process of historical-grammatical exegesis, but an inspired identification of a “hidden meaning” in the text with a present-day reality or concern. (p20)
Further, I believe that he does well to show Daniel’s less than literal reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy wouldn’t make it if examined under the light of the Chicago statement. As I stated before, neither would Matthew’s (a particular prophecy is pointed out by Stark on p28-29), the author of Hebrews, Paul (as the author points on on p30-31) or many of the early Church Fathers’. As he moves into extra-canonical sources, namely the Qumran sect(s), we see the act of subjective interpretation developing full steam, with all too familiar associations with our modern sects. Of course, much to the disconcerting effects of inerrantists, Stark goes and ruins his section here with pointing out the very real fact that the Qumran sect(s) and the New Testament writers have a similar interpretative style (p26-27). While he is correct, it is still going to be disconcerting for those who believe that the New Testament was written in a vacuum.
Moving into the Patristic writers, Stark shows that he is able to confront with mainstream church history the doctrine of inerrancy. While I would caution that his reading of Marcion is too simplistic, I believe that he handles Origen and Augustine and their view of literalism well. In doing so, the author shows that the early Church wrestled with Scripture, and in the end, authoritative didn’t always mean inerrant. I do think that the lines of inerrancy and literalism are mangled in their mingling, but not necessary by Stark are others, but by such groups as the signers of the Chicago Statement; Stark simply resolves to answer them on their terms.
After discussing the ‘evidence’ of the Text and Patristic authors, Stark moves on to modern fundamentalists. I hate to use that word in a disparaging sense because I know a few that I couldn’t disparage, which is I why I try to separate the belligerent from the non-belligerent with the word extreme. I note that the author doesn’t fully disparage the idea that Scripture interprets Scripture but roundly takes to task those who use this method while attempting to hold to a historical-grammatical approach. Further, he notes fully the corner which those who are attempting to profess to only one right way of interpretation which they feel must necessary beget inerrancy but aren’t afraid of using others in a pinch are pushed into. Inerrancy is a redaction of the divine inspiration of Scripture, and thus a human face of God, as Stark might would put it.
Regarding his interpretation of 1st Timothy 2.12-14, I do believe that in attempting to showcase the problem here of inerrancy, he inadvertently dismisses the culture context of the passage and what the author may have been saying, which would still upset inerrantists. It seems that he is almost grinding an ax with Mark Driscoll.
For me, my faith is Christ and Scripture is more secure of these facts, not less. The fact is, I try to use Scripture as it said of itself to be used, as the inspired instrument for the person of God (2nd Timothy 3.16). This is a great book, by the way, whether I agree or disagree with some of the points.
Thoughts on The Five Love Languages
Posted by Leigh Anne in Book Review on November 10, 2010
The author of this book, Gary Chapman, became aware of the five love languages from years of experience as a counselor and studying anthropology. He was counseling a particular couple when it dawned on him that they both showed and received love in different ways. Thus, this book was eventually written.
We’ve all been in love. We become completely smitten with another person. We can’t eat, we can’t sleep, we think of them 24/7. We even drop everything we care about in order to spend time with this person doing the things they love. Then we get married…..and we wonder where that “in love” feeling went. Chapman addresses this in the third chapter of his book. He calls this the in-love experience and feels the longest it can last is about 2 years. And if in those 2 years you don’t learn your spouse’s love language, trouble can begin.
The love languages include:
Words of Affirmation – Actions don’t always speak louder than words. If this is your love language, unsolicited compliments mean the world to you. Hearing the words, “I love you,” are important—hearing the reasons behind that love sends your spirits skyward. Insults can leave you shattered and are not easily forgotten
Quality Time – In the vernacular of Quality Time, nothing says, “I love you,” like full, undivided attention. Being there for this type of person is critical, but really being there—with the TV off, fork and knife down, and all chores and tasks on standby—makes your significant other feel truly special and loved. Distractions, postponed dates, or the failure to listen can be especially hurtful.
Receiving gifts – Don’t mistake this love language for materialism; the receiver of gifts thrives on the love, thoughtfulness, and effort behind the gift. If you speak this language, the perfect gift or gesture shows that you are known, you are cared for, and you are prized above whatever was sacrificed to bring the gift to you. A missed birthday, anniversary, or a hasty, thoughtless gift would be disastrous—so would the absence of everyday gestures.
Acts of Service – Can vacuuming the floors really be an expression of love? Absolutely! Anything you do to ease the burden of responsibilities weighing on an “Acts of Service” person will speak volumes. The words he or she most want to hear: “Let me do that for you.” Laziness, broken commitments, and making more work for them tell speakers of this language their feelings don’t matter.
Physical Touch – This language isn’t all about the bedroom. A person whose primary language is Physical Touch is, not surprisingly, very touchy. Hugs, pats on the back, holding hands, and thoughtful touches on the arm, shoulder, or face—they can all be ways to show excitement, concern, care, and love. Physical presence and accessibility are crucial, while neglect or abuse can be unforgivable and destructive.
I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to those who are not having issues in their marriage as well a those who are. It not only helps you show love in the most meaningful way to your spouse, but also teaches you a bit about your own needs. The author makes clear that you cannot demand love, but only request and hope that it is given. This book is simply written and a quick, easy read. The ideas within are simple yet logical and insightful.
Joel and I learned we have the same love language, Quality Time. My secondary love language is Acts of Service. These things I mostly knew of myself, but I did not guess his correctly AT ALL 
I think there is something to be learned and implemented from this book in my marriage and it can only gain from doing so.
At the end of the book there is an assessment for both husband and wife so that you can determine both love languages. Very useful. You can also take the test (and other test) on the Five Love Languages website.
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 2 – War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Religion and Politics on November 10, 2010
Click to Order
For an introduction to the series, see here.
Often times, especially in the latest round of discussion concerning war, terrorism and the appropriate response to attacks, the Hebrew bible is mined extensively (well, not too extensively, I suspect) to support a violent and oftentimes, religious response in the form of a crusade. I remember the days after 9/11 when our rhetoric was a ‘our God vs their god’ type mentality, with phrases such as ‘we should go Old Testament on their….’ brought up repeatedly. Richard Hess, an editor of this series, shapes a response to those who do violence to the Old Testament by using it to justify a swift and brutal reaction. His purpose is twofold: to consider the issue og war in a then/now spectrum as well as to allow the modern Westerner to regard him or herself in this light allowing them to see how much the views have changed by examining recent contributions to the ethics of war.
He notes that every ancient generation knew war (p20). We should be reminded, even from a casual reading of the Old Testament of places such as Har Megiddo which holds such a violent reaction in our minds because of the blood constantly spilled there during the ancient times. For evidence, as he notes, there is the fact that of the books of the Jewish canon, only two doesn’t mean war. War was a large part of the life of the ancient community, but as he goes on, it isn’t the take on it which we currently have. Instead, Hess begins to craft the notion that when YHWH went to war, it was defensive, except when YHWH stands against Israel. Contrary to Volf, Hess acknowledges the inherent violence in such things as the Day of the Lord and the wrath involved, although the author attributes this to preserving the holiness of YHWH (p24). He goes on, noting the development of ethics, but comes to show that war must be relative to YHWH, His holiness, and His judgment.
In one section of the essay, Hess details various views of war as found in the Hebrew bible – bardic and holy, to name two. I find it interesting though that the consequences of David’s bardic warmongering was not mentioned, in that the promises of the Temple were removed from his hand for the expressed reason that David’s hands were too bloody. David and presumably always fought the battles of YHWH and yet, at the end of his life, his most cherished goal and promise was denied to him because of his bloody acts as King. I do find it interesting, however, that the idea of holy war, something we hear today frequently tossed around, is not expressed in the Old Testament because their understanding included the idea that gods were always involved in war. I do appreciate his taking to task the notion of genocide as an act of human sacrifice, siting the Binding of Isaac as proof that God simply didn’t require sacrifice.
Hess takes the new normal road of seeing the wars and genocidal battles in Joshua and Judges as more in line with the bardic tradition than with an actual presentation of history. To his credit, however, he notes fully that these stories increased in the amount of bloodshed until they bring about a civil war filled with massacre. Further, he notes that the bible doesn’t give explicit approval to these actions, but as in the case of the tribe Dan, pleases the onus of warmongering on the people. (p31) In other words, they care little about being on YHWH’s side, but desperately want YHWH on theirs. It sounds all too familiar. The author deals swiftly with views which focus on war and yet leaves out the narration of such events, which generally speak only to the ‘history of it’ without giving credence to it. He ends his essay by noting that the bible, even in speaking about war, offers contradictions after contradictions on the subject, but carries with it a moral tenor that points to the cosmic struggle.
From reading the sacred text, I find very little reason for war, but the more so when reasons are given we must struggle to see they have divine approval or are the inventions of a fallen humanity. I believe that Hess, succinctly, points this out and doesn’t hide from the fact that war is prevalent in the Hebrew bible but calls us to examine whether or not the reasons are always welcomed by God.
Reflections on Thom Stark’s The Human Faces of God – Part 1
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Inerrancy on November 9, 2010
Click to Order
I want to spend some time on this book, namely because there are some books which simply demand more than a 500 word review; some books demand engagement. I believe that this is one of them. The book’s tag line, What Scripture reveals when it gets God wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide it), is sure to ward off conservatives and those who profess, such as myself, to be bible-believing Christians. Reading his endorsements, I am left with wondering where I might fit in at. From Gregory Body to Dale C. Allison and the likes of John Loftus, we find a broad range of people who insist that this book be read and properly engaged. I intend to do just that.
Inerrancy is a big issue among those who are leaving the evangelical fold, and in leaving it, they find that they are only a generation or three from those who forcibly created this new doctrine, or perhaps, codified it in such things as the Chicago Statement in the year that I was born. People feel as if the Scripture is under attack by those who are less than literal, or those who see Genesis One and Creation in a theological light rather than a scientific light, or by anyone challenging their views of Scripture. Regrettably, it has become a dividing line between Christians and polarized the camps, creating problems where there should not be.
In Stark’s preface, he notes that in his own tradition he has seen a move to the right in regards to inerrancy, which has left him feeling that a critique is necessary. Perhaps he is writing in the prophetic light, addressing his own people about the abuses and errors that he sees and if so, as Collins notes in the forward, Stark is assuming the role of Amos and Ezekiel in lobbing an attack against inerrancy as a misuse of Scripture. He is correct regarding the notion of inerrancy in that often times, it is the only version of Christianity presented. Ironically, inerrancy becomes the saving feature of the Faith. I say ironically because Christ and Paul both questioned their own versions of inerrancy in their day and was generally met with the same resistance we see today. But once you move past this, the beauty of God’s Creation opens up, and for me, so does His Word. The author writes,
I myself was once subject to the parochialism of Evangelical fundamentalism, but have since discovered, by the grace of God, a world that is much broader, more diverse, charitable, and vibrant than the “orthodoxy” that marked my youth (xvi)
Thus is his self-stated goal, paraphrased: to unshelter the sheltered. It is a lofty goal, and I would guarantee, one unwelcomed. I often say that the worse thing you can give an extreme fundamentalist is a book. Maybe Thom’s book will be the book that opens up a hole in the mud roof for many of them. His goals and intentions are well put, desiring only a holistically faithful account of Scripture in the Church. We should do no less if we desire to remain faithful and honest to the teachings of Christ.
Stark begins his work by describing the Argument, as he calls it. To be honest, for me this idea, which he gives word to or me, has been budding in the back of my mind for a while. Examine Ruth and Ezra, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the book of the Kingdoms and the Chronicler’s works. They are debating with each other. Ezra wants to expel all foreigners from Judea, and yet Ruth whom the Law banned from entering into the Promised Land is David’s Grandmother! David is a bad king in the Kingdoms, but in the Chronicles, his errors are hardly mentioned? Further, there are those things which Stark points out in Job and other books of the (canonical) Wisdom Genre which would make us recoil if we heard Christians actually professing! And what of God’s own admonition of Israel through the Prophets and their later insistence of a divine right? The author correctly labels this the ‘Argument’ and after showing it to be an accurate painting of the text, briefly (much to my chagrin) describes the political need for a canon which arose during exile and subsequent troublesome times.
Of course, as some will today maintain, God’s hand of inspiration can still be seen in the collections of these books. What if God’s method of revealing Himself to His creation was really about disjointed arguments given in diverse and odd ways (Hebrews 1.1) to those who had ears to hear? Can we see God as simplistic or have we come to realize that God is not merely the paradox of transcendent and imminent but so too very difficult at times to fully understand? I do wish that a separation between inerrancy and inspiration was drawn early on, although admittedly, it would have destroyed the flow of the chapter.
I would recommend to those of you who are struggling with reading Scripture and to those who aren’t.
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 1 – Christianity and Violence
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Religion and Politics on November 9, 2010
Click to Order
I wanted to spend some time going through the eight essays of this book, as I find that this issue is important. Not only in the we see the world at large, which has increasingly become known only through the lens of nativism, but so too how we remember ourselves. I’ll be up front – my views on such things as ‘an appropriate response to terrorism’ has been influenced by Richard T. Hughes and his book, Christian American and the Kingdom of God. I imagine it is more Mennonite than what some would like, but it is mine nevertheless because I view it as a Christian method of response.
This book, published by Eisenbrauns (here), is part of the Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement series edited by Richard S. Hess and Craig L. Blomberg. This particular volume is edited by Hess and Elmer A. Martens and includes distinguished writers, such as Daniel Heimback and Ian G.C. Durie. It is a collect of essays inspired by Denver Seminary’s annual Biblical Studies conference, help in 2004, which attempted to ‘address… the question of the teachings of biblical ethics regarding modern war.’ (viii)
I want to examine, and to open up the discussion, on the first essay, as written by Miroslav Volf entitled Christianity and Violence.
His thesis is essentially this:
The more we reduce Christian faith to a vague religiosity that serves primarily to energize, heal, and give meaning to a life the content of which is shaped by factors other than faith (such as national or economic interests), the worse off we will be (p3)
His goal is not to argue against the fact that Christianity has been employed to ‘foster violence’ (p3), but that Christianity might actually have some value in securing a more peaceful society. For an immediate historical allusion to this, just note the rise of secularization in Europe during the middle 19th century which brought about bloody and ruthless conflicts. In some small way, I believe that this is actually feeding a resurgence in those seeking religion in much the same way that the bloody religious wars of the 16th and 17th history fed secularization. Religion is simply not dead, nor as private as we might would like to this, according to Volf, who notes that this new religious fervor brought on by changes in the 20th century (think of the Soviet invasion and attempted secularization of Afghanistan in the 80′s and what he led to, culminating in the attacks on 9/11). The author’s answer? More Christianity, but not the thin veneer that we have come to know as Christianity, but something more ingrained.
He validates his argument by calling for a real commitment to this faith of ours, and not a ‘thin’ (his words) religious zeal which scratches the surface of Christianity and will most likely produce violence. Volf argues quite forcefully that by understanding real Christian theology and doctrine, and finding that these dogmas must by necessity of themselves ground the believer in a realm of peace, then the path to peace is entrenching oneself in the historic doctrines of the faith. Frankly, it is refreshing to see an author call for more religion to bring about peace instead of taking the modern path of calling for the end of religion altogether. To do so, he tackles four arguments which is used by scholars to show that religion, and Christianity in particular it seems, leads to violence. In doing so, he turns them on their head, approaching the Christian doctrine not from a stance of regret for doctrine, but a truly Apologetic discourse which attempt to set the record straight on violence in Christianity, or rather, violence for which Christianity is used to underwrite.
His take on Revelation is interesting, and while I may be leaning to the ‘non-violent violence of it all, I am not sure I am willing to completely accept this notion that Revelation is almost wholly without violence. Reader, you have to first understand what he means by violence and how that stands opposed to what we see as violence. I believe that Volf is seeing violence as imposition of will, which he doesn’t find either the Creation or the New Creation. Even in Creation, unless understood properly, someone could see abstract violence in that the Creator molded something which was not of His Nature. Yet, that is not the Christian Doctrine. While I do not explicitly believe in creatio ex nihilo, nor some of his other doctrines so expressed, Volf continues to show that in these doctrines, and even in the most violent of interpretations, there is still the grounding of Love. God is Love.
What is equally interesting and something of note, is that Volf takes these doctrines and simply shows how without them, people are prone to be more violent!
Volf is correct in that ‘The Christian faith is misused when it is employed to underwrite violence’. I have been on the receiving end of relatively a small amount of that violence, but I see the effects of the greater portion of that misuse in my community and circle of friends (he notes on p16 that this is the inflation of the negative in which the evil of religion overtakes the large amount of good produced by religion). I would agree with him, that if Christians were brought back to the historic texts (and I assume, digging through the patina of interpretations back to a better understanding of our values) that they would be true peacemakers. There is a hope for something that Volf speaks about, and I believe that this hope may be realized in this search for historic awareness of the Christian doctrines.
Cannot wait for the second essay…
