Yesterday, I provided very brief summaries of some of the dominant theories of atonement with some problems from each. A few weeks ago, I was introduced to the philosophical works of René Girard during a psychology conference at my doctoral alma mater.
Again, in very brief summary, Girard presents the idea of mimetic desire, essentially that humans have the drive to mimic or imitate others. This has plenty of psychological implications that actually seem verified at some level in neurobiological studies.
He argues that as we develop, we want what other have, causing mimetic violence, as we try to take what the others have. Eventually, a scapegoat is sought in order to restore the social order.
Applying this to the Bible (which Girard did, although I'm not sure if he developed an atonement theory--these are my thoughts and application), we can see the violence that continually escalates throughout the Old Testament, culminating in the scapegoat of Christ.
If we assume that the ideas of mimetic desire, mimetic violence, and the scapegoat mechanism are accurate within humanity, then God's introduction of literal scapegoats as sacrifices may not have been as much to satisfy God's need for justice and retribution as much as human's need for such obvious justice. By providing a divinely ordained solution to guilt, God protected his creation from additional violence at the hands of one another.
Such continual scapegoating could only last so long, so eventually Jesus was sent. Through living a perfect life, there was no reason he should be killed or blamed for any wrongdoing. Yet he was condemned, becoming the epitome of an unjust scapegoat.
Through the ridiculousness of the condemnation, further emphasized through the resurrection, the scapegoat of Christ emphasizes the absurdity of scapegoating and violence. With the recognition of its absurdity, those of us who recognize his sacrifice can take on his moral influence and stop violence. Further, since our human drive is for a scapegoat, Christ's death was necessary to prevent additional violence within the world to both other humans and the rest of creation.
The scapegoating of Christ serves as a ransom from the perspective of humans, as it ransoms us from the evil grasp of mimetic violence and greed, which would be at the core of a literal or metaphorical Satan. His death still fulfills the humanly constructed need for justice appeased and satisfied in clear, concrete, and unyielding ways. Yet it also shows us the limitations of our human constructions and the ideal of God's divine thought.
While this is a simple outlined version of an atonement theory based on Girard's mimetic theory, I think it can provide a way to integrate elements of all the major atonement theories into a cohesive whole while also addressing the problems with each. Therefore, it doesn't wholly absorb them, but rather challenges certain elements, like Christ's sacrifice being directed more at humans than at God or Satan. Like Brink argued in his book, most perspectives of atonement place the problems on God, Satan, or the law. This theory places it in us. It is not Satan who requires payment. It is not God who requires payment. It is man. And from what I've read in the Bible and experienced in life, humanity is definitely the primary one who always demands clear, concrete, and sacrificial restitution.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Atonement Problems @jonathanbrink @greg_boyd @edcyzewski @markgalli
I've been thinking a lot about atonement theories lately (yes, even before the Rob Bell controversy). For those who don't know, atonement is the fancy word to explain Christ's sacrifice and our reconciliation with God. I've found few people know that there are multiple ways of explaining why Christ died on the cross, all of which are rooted in biblical understandings.
A lot of debates and theological disagreements have some relationship to the atonement theory each individual ascribes to, so I thought it might be helpful to provide a short summary here about some of them to introduce people to these ideas. Tomorrow, I'm going to outline some of my thoughts that integrates some of these models into a coherent whole while challenging problematic elements through Girard's mimetic theory.
Wikipedia's articles on the atonement theories are very useful in providing more detailed information, as this is really a general overview. While I mention some of the problems with each of the theories, all of this is far from exhaustive, as volumes and volumes have been written about each theory.
Substitutionary atonement is the idea that Christ died in place of us. This is one of the most common one in evangelical America. However, there are subtypes of substitutionary atonement.
Penal substitutionary atonement is the one popular among the neo-Calvinists, like Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and the rest of The Gospel Coalition. This takes a legal metaphor, where there is a clear cause and effect according to the law, which cannot be waived. The punishment for sin is God's unending wrath. Christ stands in between us, allowing God to pour out his wrath on Jesus, allowing the punishment to still occur, but without us having to suffer it. The problem with this, as Jonathan Brink and other have stated, is we are being saved from God, making him not a very compelling God to love. The governmental theory is similar, emphasizing that Christ's sacrifice allowed God to be both just and merciful at the same time.
The satisfaction theory of atonement is also similar. It takes on a legal tone, whereby Christ's death is paying restitution for the wrongs of man. It "satisfies" the debt we have incurred.
On the other side, there is a ransom theory of atonement. Ultimately, the idea is that the world is under the power of Satan. Christ's death is a ransom to take us out o the power of Satan and back into the hands of God. CS Lewis' depiction of Aslan dying to ransom Edmund essentially depicts this view. The problem here is that this give Satan quite a lot of power, in some ways appearing to have more power over God.
The Christus Victor perspective is often presented along with ransom theory, although there are differences. The idea of this theory is that Christ is victorious against all evil in the world through his death and resurrection, thereby squashing the power of Satan. Gregory Boyd presents a compelling, holistic view of the Christus Victor perspective, though, giving Satan much less power than in the traditional ransom theory. Ed Cyzewski wrote about how Christus Victor can be a response to the limited perspective of substitutionary atonement, while Mark Galli at Christianity today recently posted a piece exploring the limitations of some Christus Victor perspectives.
There's also the moral influence theory, where Christ dies to demonstrate for us the power and importance of love. He is influencing us to live moral, holy lives. This is definitely compelling, as Christ is the model for our spiritual formation. Another variation of it is that it emphasizes God's holiness, goodness, and love rather than simply being a model of good behavior. However, as one of my friends says, this doesn't really explain why Christ's death was necessary. My friend's analogy is that because he loves me, he'll step out in front of a bus and die. Not really useful or necessary.
There are other theories, too, but these are the most prominent ones. The issue is that so often people hold closely to one, disregarding the others. In fact, though, the Bible actually explains the atonement in each of these ways through metaphor. And these theories have each developed in distinct cultural contexts (for instance, penal substitutionary atonement has its roots, from my understanding, in the feudal times when strict legal/forensic understandings of the world were important). Each has their strengths, but each also misses, in my opinion, a big part of the Gospel.
As I mentioned earlier, Brink wrote a book exploring an alternative view of the atonement, which I summarized in my review of the book. He argues that Christ's death was necessary because we humans needed it. Without it, we would not be able to accept God's love for us and subsequent reconciliation. I think there are significant strengths in his theory.
People committed to emphasizing that God must pour out wrath on the world because that is who God is will have problems with that theory. I don't believe God is a God of wrath. God has wrath, but God can also control and not pour it out if he so chooses. The Incarnation itself is a perfect example of God voluntarily limiting his power and choosing to hide his full glory for the sake of reconciliation and love. I don't have a problem with God giving up justice for love. He does that frequently throughout the Bible.
Further, the perspective of wrath that is the root of penal models is rooted in anthropomorphic viewpoints, emphasizing human wrath, which is all about anger and punishment. There are arguments that explain a biblical view of God's wrath is not about anger or punishment and that fearing God does not necessarily equal being afraid of God.
I see a need for constant justice with some payment always occurring being more of a human need, not God's need. We need someone to be punished because then we can control the outcomes and can clearly identify who is where because it's all measurable and behavioral. Life, especially in relationship with God, is not that simple.
Ultimately, the legal twists on atonement seem to present God in a very negative light. He is a God primarily of justice and wrath. In contrast, the moral influence, ransom, and Christus Victor perspectives can emphasize a weak God who is more beholden to Satan and humanity. None of these seems terribly satisfying or encompassing the whole picture of the atonement. Could it be that we may not be meant to fully understand the atonement? Could all of these views be correct?
A lot of debates and theological disagreements have some relationship to the atonement theory each individual ascribes to, so I thought it might be helpful to provide a short summary here about some of them to introduce people to these ideas. Tomorrow, I'm going to outline some of my thoughts that integrates some of these models into a coherent whole while challenging problematic elements through Girard's mimetic theory.
Wikipedia's articles on the atonement theories are very useful in providing more detailed information, as this is really a general overview. While I mention some of the problems with each of the theories, all of this is far from exhaustive, as volumes and volumes have been written about each theory.
Substitutionary atonement is the idea that Christ died in place of us. This is one of the most common one in evangelical America. However, there are subtypes of substitutionary atonement.
Penal substitutionary atonement is the one popular among the neo-Calvinists, like Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and the rest of The Gospel Coalition. This takes a legal metaphor, where there is a clear cause and effect according to the law, which cannot be waived. The punishment for sin is God's unending wrath. Christ stands in between us, allowing God to pour out his wrath on Jesus, allowing the punishment to still occur, but without us having to suffer it. The problem with this, as Jonathan Brink and other have stated, is we are being saved from God, making him not a very compelling God to love. The governmental theory is similar, emphasizing that Christ's sacrifice allowed God to be both just and merciful at the same time.
The satisfaction theory of atonement is also similar. It takes on a legal tone, whereby Christ's death is paying restitution for the wrongs of man. It "satisfies" the debt we have incurred.
On the other side, there is a ransom theory of atonement. Ultimately, the idea is that the world is under the power of Satan. Christ's death is a ransom to take us out o the power of Satan and back into the hands of God. CS Lewis' depiction of Aslan dying to ransom Edmund essentially depicts this view. The problem here is that this give Satan quite a lot of power, in some ways appearing to have more power over God.
The Christus Victor perspective is often presented along with ransom theory, although there are differences. The idea of this theory is that Christ is victorious against all evil in the world through his death and resurrection, thereby squashing the power of Satan. Gregory Boyd presents a compelling, holistic view of the Christus Victor perspective, though, giving Satan much less power than in the traditional ransom theory. Ed Cyzewski wrote about how Christus Victor can be a response to the limited perspective of substitutionary atonement, while Mark Galli at Christianity today recently posted a piece exploring the limitations of some Christus Victor perspectives.
There's also the moral influence theory, where Christ dies to demonstrate for us the power and importance of love. He is influencing us to live moral, holy lives. This is definitely compelling, as Christ is the model for our spiritual formation. Another variation of it is that it emphasizes God's holiness, goodness, and love rather than simply being a model of good behavior. However, as one of my friends says, this doesn't really explain why Christ's death was necessary. My friend's analogy is that because he loves me, he'll step out in front of a bus and die. Not really useful or necessary.
There are other theories, too, but these are the most prominent ones. The issue is that so often people hold closely to one, disregarding the others. In fact, though, the Bible actually explains the atonement in each of these ways through metaphor. And these theories have each developed in distinct cultural contexts (for instance, penal substitutionary atonement has its roots, from my understanding, in the feudal times when strict legal/forensic understandings of the world were important). Each has their strengths, but each also misses, in my opinion, a big part of the Gospel.
As I mentioned earlier, Brink wrote a book exploring an alternative view of the atonement, which I summarized in my review of the book. He argues that Christ's death was necessary because we humans needed it. Without it, we would not be able to accept God's love for us and subsequent reconciliation. I think there are significant strengths in his theory.
People committed to emphasizing that God must pour out wrath on the world because that is who God is will have problems with that theory. I don't believe God is a God of wrath. God has wrath, but God can also control and not pour it out if he so chooses. The Incarnation itself is a perfect example of God voluntarily limiting his power and choosing to hide his full glory for the sake of reconciliation and love. I don't have a problem with God giving up justice for love. He does that frequently throughout the Bible.
Further, the perspective of wrath that is the root of penal models is rooted in anthropomorphic viewpoints, emphasizing human wrath, which is all about anger and punishment. There are arguments that explain a biblical view of God's wrath is not about anger or punishment and that fearing God does not necessarily equal being afraid of God.
I see a need for constant justice with some payment always occurring being more of a human need, not God's need. We need someone to be punished because then we can control the outcomes and can clearly identify who is where because it's all measurable and behavioral. Life, especially in relationship with God, is not that simple.
Ultimately, the legal twists on atonement seem to present God in a very negative light. He is a God primarily of justice and wrath. In contrast, the moral influence, ransom, and Christus Victor perspectives can emphasize a weak God who is more beholden to Satan and humanity. None of these seems terribly satisfying or encompassing the whole picture of the atonement. Could it be that we may not be meant to fully understand the atonement? Could all of these views be correct?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The Pastor and The Psychologist @christianaudio @caReviewers
I'm currently in the middle of listening to the audiobook version of Eugene Peterson's memoir, The Pastor (with a free copy courtesy of christianaudio). I had heard nothing but good things about it, and I have to agree. Since it's a long book (12 hours for the audio), I wanted to post something about how it has impacted me in my vocation as a psychologist.
While the tome focuses on the pastoral vocation, Peterson actually spends a good amount of time exploring the role of mental health and the work of a pastor. He describes how he began working in a rural area with a significant dearth of mental health professionals. A local psychiatrist realized that clergy are usually the first line of defense against mental illness and that most people having emotional problems seek clergy first. This is fact that has been verified many times up to the present, emphasizing the importance of the clergy to know about mental health. In response, the psychiatrist trained a group of a dozen or so clergy members in the basics of mental illness so they could aid with triage and helping get people to needed services.
As a psychologist, I absolutely love this. It's a great way to bridge the artificial divide between psychology and church life while having the practical implication of utilizing resources wisely to help people get the help they need.
Peterson expressed his appreciation for this training. One of the things he noted was that he began approaching his congregation as problems to be solved, diagnoses to be named in order to find the issue and provide a resolution. He did not at all criticize the mental health field for this, but realized that he needed to back up and begin to re-immerse himself in the ambiguities of congregational life (and I would add that solutions are not always possible).
Rather than giving an answer or immediately offering to do something, he explained how he would sometimes just sit with the other person. Or he would ask if they would like him to do anything. He stated this was difficult because providing the answers helps the ego and sense of accomplishment of seeing change happen quickly.
Yet this is not all that different from the work of many psychologists. While there are some people who focus on diagnostics and simple symptom reduction, that is not my calling. There are plenty of psychologists who want to focus on deeper elements than behaviors and labels. While we may have to use that wording at times for billing purposes, many of us do work much closer to what Peterson described of just offering ourselves and our presence to the individual or family.
At this point, the work of a psychologist moves from a job to a vocation. Depending on our orientations, I kept thinking that the best description of my work is being more of a pastoral psychologist than a clinical psychologist. This emphasizes the lack of the de-personalization and impersonalizing work that can often coincide with a more clinical perspective, which Peterson explained was key to his understanding of the danger of seeing his congregation as problems to be solved.
Later on, he describes how a friend, who lived through Nazi Germany, became severely disillusioned with the institution of church, as so many supported Hitler's terror. Peterson beautifully describes how this friend vividly pointed out how the position of pastor could suck all of his life and compassion and heart out, leaving a deadened, sick individual.
This is not so different from the life of a psychologist. The issues of insurance and institutions and diagnoses and money can quickly de-personalize all work, sucking the love and sense of vocation out of the psychologist. I have struggled with this, despite being new in the field. Peterson's work helped me recall and refocus on my reasons for pursuing my vocation.
While I'm only halfway through the book, I would definitely recommend this to all mental health professionals and would love to include it in future classes I may teach to budding clinicians. It reminds us we should not just be pursuing a job, but a vocation.
While the tome focuses on the pastoral vocation, Peterson actually spends a good amount of time exploring the role of mental health and the work of a pastor. He describes how he began working in a rural area with a significant dearth of mental health professionals. A local psychiatrist realized that clergy are usually the first line of defense against mental illness and that most people having emotional problems seek clergy first. This is fact that has been verified many times up to the present, emphasizing the importance of the clergy to know about mental health. In response, the psychiatrist trained a group of a dozen or so clergy members in the basics of mental illness so they could aid with triage and helping get people to needed services.
As a psychologist, I absolutely love this. It's a great way to bridge the artificial divide between psychology and church life while having the practical implication of utilizing resources wisely to help people get the help they need.
Peterson expressed his appreciation for this training. One of the things he noted was that he began approaching his congregation as problems to be solved, diagnoses to be named in order to find the issue and provide a resolution. He did not at all criticize the mental health field for this, but realized that he needed to back up and begin to re-immerse himself in the ambiguities of congregational life (and I would add that solutions are not always possible).
Rather than giving an answer or immediately offering to do something, he explained how he would sometimes just sit with the other person. Or he would ask if they would like him to do anything. He stated this was difficult because providing the answers helps the ego and sense of accomplishment of seeing change happen quickly.
Yet this is not all that different from the work of many psychologists. While there are some people who focus on diagnostics and simple symptom reduction, that is not my calling. There are plenty of psychologists who want to focus on deeper elements than behaviors and labels. While we may have to use that wording at times for billing purposes, many of us do work much closer to what Peterson described of just offering ourselves and our presence to the individual or family.
At this point, the work of a psychologist moves from a job to a vocation. Depending on our orientations, I kept thinking that the best description of my work is being more of a pastoral psychologist than a clinical psychologist. This emphasizes the lack of the de-personalization and impersonalizing work that can often coincide with a more clinical perspective, which Peterson explained was key to his understanding of the danger of seeing his congregation as problems to be solved.
Later on, he describes how a friend, who lived through Nazi Germany, became severely disillusioned with the institution of church, as so many supported Hitler's terror. Peterson beautifully describes how this friend vividly pointed out how the position of pastor could suck all of his life and compassion and heart out, leaving a deadened, sick individual.
This is not so different from the life of a psychologist. The issues of insurance and institutions and diagnoses and money can quickly de-personalize all work, sucking the love and sense of vocation out of the psychologist. I have struggled with this, despite being new in the field. Peterson's work helped me recall and refocus on my reasons for pursuing my vocation.
While I'm only halfway through the book, I would definitely recommend this to all mental health professionals and would love to include it in future classes I may teach to budding clinicians. It reminds us we should not just be pursuing a job, but a vocation.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Recruiting Spiritual Coaches
Below is information from one of the companies I review books for. It looks like something some of you might be interested in, so I wanted to pass it along. Contributing to the spiritual development of others, especially young people, is vitally important.
Teens today can be overwhelmed searching for meaning amidst depressing hopelessness, negative self-image, and the pressure to be perfect. Groundwire, a current and innovative outreach, has become a ministry where teens find comfort, guidance, and answers delivered through multi-media communication. Groundwire leverages media and technology to meet teens exactly where they are — viewing, listening, texting, or chatting — and to invite them to voice their questions and struggles so they can find answers in the message of the Gospel.
Are you compassionate and caring?
Are you a good listener?
Do you want to share the message of hope with others?
Groundwire needs you!
The ministry builds its impact through broadcasting that strategically places television and radio spots on secular stations. Teens listening to popular radio broadcasts or viewing favorite shows on networks like MTV, VH1, Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim programming, and Comedy Central are interrupted by direct spots. These spots catch their attention, resonating with where they are today. Teens responding to the broadcast messages are invited to visit Groundwire’s website where they can chat with a live spiritual coach available day and night, as well as find a collection of resources such as podcasts by Groundwire’s founder and executive director, Sean Dunn, and daily devotionals.
To meet the needs of hurting teenagers across the country, Groundwire is looking for additional online coaches. Are you interested?
FAQ’s regarding volunteer spiritual coaches
What is Groundwire?
Groundwire is an international ministry aimed at broadcasting hope to students all over the world by leveraging the most effective media formats. Their radio spots are heard on both mainstream and Christian stations and their TV commercials are aired on MTV, VH1 and the Cartoon Network among others. Each spot points their audience to the Groundwire website where spiritual coaches are available to answer questions, encourage with biblical hope and pray for chatters.
What is the Coaching Line?
www.grounwire.net does not simply offer content, but conversation. The coaching line is an instant message platform that connects chatters with trained coaches in order to provide one-to-one real time conversation. Volunteers all over the world offer their time and talents in order to meet the needs of those searching.
Who is capable of being a spiritual coach?
Spiritual coaches are sold-out Believers who are committed to the Great Commission and love people. They realize that although they are not perfect, God can and desires to speak through them and they realize that technology offers amazing opportunities to minister to people all over the world. Coaches need to be over eighteen and willing to submit to a background check and go through the necessary training.
What are some of the needed qualities of a coach?
Compassionate, teachable, good listener, sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s leading, patient, resilient and authentic.
What type of commitment are you looking for?
The typical coach offers two to four hours weekly on line, however some offer up to ten. Coaches set their own schedule on a monthly basis and coordinate with team leaders to offer the line sufficient coverage.
Can I coach from home?
Once a coach has been trained and given their log in information they can offer support from any location with internet connectivity.
Who would I be talking to?
Although Groundwire media buys are aimed at youth and young adults, and the majority of chats are in that age range, chatters have ranged from eleven to sixty-seven years of age and from over one hundred countries. The issues are very diverse ranging from the extremely depressed and suicidal person to the fifteen year old who is struggling with relationships.
What does the training look like?
Training begins when an application is completed and returned to the Director of Coaching. From that point the majority of training is done online and consists of learning how to deal with the different types of conversations that might take place. There are a series of written responses that take place in email format and then an online mock chat as well.
What type of oversight is offered?
In order to protect the integrity of the Groundwire mission and message, layers of organization and accountability are built into our procedures. Coaches are encouraged and offered additional training on an ongoing basis. Each chat is read to protect volunteers from accusations of inappropriate behavior as well as to ensure a consistent message is being presented. Each coach is assigned a team lead that will act as a mentor in an ongoing manner.
How will this benefit me as a person?
Seeing God speak through you to comfort someone who is struggling builds your confidence. On top of that the skills and discernment you will discover as you serve the Lord in this type of face to face ministry translate into your everyday life and the other areas where you serve.
Let your audience know how they can become Groundwire spiritual coaches!
For more information or to get download an application, visitwww.groundwire.net/coaching.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Eternal Punishment May Not Be Biblical
On the heels of the over-debated topic of hell thanks to Rob Bell and inflammatory comments by The Gospel Coalition, I have been thinking a bit about the emphasis many of us put on punishment and how we see that played out in our theology.
Uber-liberals have been known to profess universal reconciliation, in which all people spend eternity with God in heaven. Uber-conservatives are known to say that is heretical, as all people who do not explicitly profess Christ as Lord and Savior are doomed to eternal conscious torment in hell. The conscious part in conservative theology is important as some faiths say that people will continue to live on, including apart from God, but will essentially be asleep. This view is not accepted by the more conservative branches.
And then there's a variety in between, namely some form of annihilationism. In this perspective, those who do not have a relationship with God (and of course different people argue this is defined differently, but we won't get into that part here) will eventually cease to exist at all. In other words, they are annihilated.
Some annihilationists think this complete death will occur upon earthly death. Others say there will be a time of punishment in hell, followed by annihilation. Then there's the people who think that some people will go through a time of punishment and then be able to be reconciled to God, sort of like purgatory.
When we think of punishment both psychologically and biblically, it is used to correct. It helps people learn and grow or to purify people. There is no support for punishment for the sake of punishment. Revenge is clearly frowned upon frequently.
Even when people made serious errors causing very long situations where they were indebted to others, God created the Jubilee, giving everyone a second chance.
Take this principle about the philosophy of punishment and apply it to the afterlife. Eternal conscious torment with no hope of release has no grounds for purification or for helping people learn and change. Punishment just prior to being annihilated has the same situation. Both of these sound more like torture than punishment. And God is not a God of torture nor would condone torture.
In contrast, punishment post-death with a hope of post-mortem repentance has the element of true punishment--moving toward change. Therefore, this perspective or immediate annihilation actually seem to make the most sense if we consider what the purpose of punishment is...
Uber-liberals have been known to profess universal reconciliation, in which all people spend eternity with God in heaven. Uber-conservatives are known to say that is heretical, as all people who do not explicitly profess Christ as Lord and Savior are doomed to eternal conscious torment in hell. The conscious part in conservative theology is important as some faiths say that people will continue to live on, including apart from God, but will essentially be asleep. This view is not accepted by the more conservative branches.
And then there's a variety in between, namely some form of annihilationism. In this perspective, those who do not have a relationship with God (and of course different people argue this is defined differently, but we won't get into that part here) will eventually cease to exist at all. In other words, they are annihilated.
Some annihilationists think this complete death will occur upon earthly death. Others say there will be a time of punishment in hell, followed by annihilation. Then there's the people who think that some people will go through a time of punishment and then be able to be reconciled to God, sort of like purgatory.
When we think of punishment both psychologically and biblically, it is used to correct. It helps people learn and grow or to purify people. There is no support for punishment for the sake of punishment. Revenge is clearly frowned upon frequently.
Even when people made serious errors causing very long situations where they were indebted to others, God created the Jubilee, giving everyone a second chance.
Take this principle about the philosophy of punishment and apply it to the afterlife. Eternal conscious torment with no hope of release has no grounds for purification or for helping people learn and change. Punishment just prior to being annihilated has the same situation. Both of these sound more like torture than punishment. And God is not a God of torture nor would condone torture.
In contrast, punishment post-death with a hope of post-mortem repentance has the element of true punishment--moving toward change. Therefore, this perspective or immediate annihilation actually seem to make the most sense if we consider what the purpose of punishment is...
Friday, April 1, 2011
The Need for Radical Discipleship @christianaudio @caReviewers
The idea of discipleship is a hot topic right now, as is the idea of being a "radical" follower of Christ. Different people have different takes on what discipleship and radical actually mean. In what may be his last book, John Stott writes about what he has learned is the nature of a radical disciple in The Radical Disciple: Some Neglected Aspects of our Calling. He addresses eight topics: nonconformity, Christlikeness, maturity, creation care, simplicity, balance, dependence, and death.
Each of these topics have been discussed often ad nauseum, particularly in the social justice and missional literature. Add to that the spiritual formation works, and there was very little I heard in the book that hadn't been said elsewhere (and often said better, to be honest). It was not a bad book; it just didn't seem all that radical to me.
The lack of radicalness (is that a word?) may be because the ideas don't seem all that new or that Stott uses more formal language that fits his older British Anglican heritage. Just this reaction itself may be important for us to evaluate how we define radical. At what point do we see radical as ordinary because we are numb to it or bored with it? Do we always need to change what is radical in order to be radical? Should we always be radical?
I thought the final chapters on dependence and death, though, were particularly interesting and insightful. Stott accurately noted that most people do just about everything in their power in order to not be burdens on others. He noted that we are meant to be burdens on one another in order to foster interdependence. I've never heard anyone say that before, but I would agree.
Stott's text (or audio, as I experienced it) was not earth-shattering in my experience, but is a nice short summary of what one person sees as radical discipleship. One of the things I appreciated was that he noted that his form of discipleship may not be applicable to all people, but that we should all seek our own discipleship. That acknowledges and emphasizes the importance of personal application.
Note: I received a complimentary copy of this audiobook in exchange for a review (with no obligation for a positive review).
Each of these topics have been discussed often ad nauseum, particularly in the social justice and missional literature. Add to that the spiritual formation works, and there was very little I heard in the book that hadn't been said elsewhere (and often said better, to be honest). It was not a bad book; it just didn't seem all that radical to me.
The lack of radicalness (is that a word?) may be because the ideas don't seem all that new or that Stott uses more formal language that fits his older British Anglican heritage. Just this reaction itself may be important for us to evaluate how we define radical. At what point do we see radical as ordinary because we are numb to it or bored with it? Do we always need to change what is radical in order to be radical? Should we always be radical?
I thought the final chapters on dependence and death, though, were particularly interesting and insightful. Stott accurately noted that most people do just about everything in their power in order to not be burdens on others. He noted that we are meant to be burdens on one another in order to foster interdependence. I've never heard anyone say that before, but I would agree.
Stott's text (or audio, as I experienced it) was not earth-shattering in my experience, but is a nice short summary of what one person sees as radical discipleship. One of the things I appreciated was that he noted that his form of discipleship may not be applicable to all people, but that we should all seek our own discipleship. That acknowledges and emphasizes the importance of personal application.
Note: I received a complimentary copy of this audiobook in exchange for a review (with no obligation for a positive review).
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Devilish Forgiveness @christianaudio @caReviewers
I recently listened to the audiobook version of The Devil in Pew Number Seven. This is an autobiographical tale of Rebecca Nichols Alonzo, whose family was terrorized for several years by a neighbor who also attended the church her father pastored.
While not spoken by Alonzo herself, the narrator, Pam Ward, did a very nice job making the story come alive and feel real. I have listened to many crime audiobooks, and the audio kept up with those decently. The structure, organization, tone of the tome was great; I wanted to keep listening and find out what happened next. I could easily see this book transformed into a gripping film.
What I kept having trouble fathoming was that this was not fiction. It was very much real. Alonzo's various media interviews provide some photographs of the people involved, which add a level of authenticity to the story. Her CBN interview, in particular, did this nicely. If you don't want to know the major plots points, though, don't watch it; it's a rather detailed synopsis of the whole book. On that note, before you read further, here's a...
While not spoken by Alonzo herself, the narrator, Pam Ward, did a very nice job making the story come alive and feel real. I have listened to many crime audiobooks, and the audio kept up with those decently. The structure, organization, tone of the tome was great; I wanted to keep listening and find out what happened next. I could easily see this book transformed into a gripping film.
What I kept having trouble fathoming was that this was not fiction. It was very much real. Alonzo's various media interviews provide some photographs of the people involved, which add a level of authenticity to the story. Her CBN interview, in particular, did this nicely. If you don't want to know the major plots points, though, don't watch it; it's a rather detailed synopsis of the whole book. On that note, before you read further, here's a...
**MINOR SPOILER ALERT WARNING**
The tale did a fabulous job exploring the dilemma of standing up against evil rather than running. Alonzo's parents chose to stand and fight through faith (they never engaged in physical violence or character assassination), believing God put them in this church for a reason. Yet the amount of harm they encountered poses an interesting question of whether God would put children, in particular, in harm's way. As a psychologist, if they came to me, I would be required to make a CPS report. The terrorists would be the perpetrators, but could the Nichols be sanctioned for failing to protect their children?
Over time, the protection of the home definitely increased, including a guard. But I was amazed how long that took. I would imagine in many small communities that at least the church members might take turns standing guard.
I don't mean to be judgmental here. This community faced something extraordinarily difficult. My comments are more to explore moral and ethical questions and how we, as humanity, can improve in the future. I think this community did very well under the circumstances.
I absolutely loved the narrative of the book. It was a wonderful look into real-life struggles of faith and how to face adversity. It even dealt with mental health issues pretty well.
The last section, though, changed directions. It moved from telling the story of Alonzo's life to essentially becoming a sermon on forgiveness. It was well-written; it just felt out-of-place. It also felt preachy at times. Ultimately, my reaction was that this took away from the emotional power that the rest of the story and Alonzo's experience with forgiveness. This section should have been shortened into a simple epilogue.
Overall, though, I give it a high recommendation. It combines the best elements of nonfiction and the structure of nonfiction into a tome that really encourages the reader (or listener) to consider and struggle with the ideas of persecution, faith, and forgiveness.
Note: I received a complimentary copy of this audiobook in exchange for a review (with no obligation for a positive review).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)