Do you remember the first time you read Wild At Heart (if you're a woman, Captivating)?
One of the main things that the book (a good read, very helpful, even though I'm about to make fun of it) harps on is that the things that we desire, our deepest innermost longings, are a reflection of who God made us to be.
In Wild At Heart, that meant the reason men like to play wargames and be brutal is because God made us to be warriors. Women, if you read captivating, like to read Vogue or whatever it is that women read because God made them to be beautiful.
It's an interesting premise, and one that is getting more and more play in christian circles and books. I just read about it in a book for introverts (review forthcoming) - the idea that if we're not sure what to do, to listen deep down to what our desire is - that God planted that desire in our heart.
Does anyone have scriptures to back this whole premise up? Because it sounds silly to me. Here's the argument in different wording: "I should do what I want because that's what God wants me to."
Anyone else sensing a self serving christianity here? Maybe my desire to pickpocket is a God-planted desire. Or my desire to see the Red Wings destroy everyone else in the NHL is God-planted - because that desire is as real as any I've known.
It's a seriously silly question.
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Evil and the Justice of God Review
Evil and the Justice of God by NT Wright
I suppose I find it hard to believe that I've never actually read a book by N.T. Wright. I've been aware of him for a long time, but I've never actually sat down to read any of his works. I've heard him quoted in books, in classes, in conversations, but until now, I didn't really know whether he was a good theologian or a good writer or both.
Now, I feel confident in saying that Wright is both. His theology (at least in Evil and the Justice of God) is quite strong, and it is clear he puts a lot of thought and research into his work. Yet Wright also manages to be understandable, which is something that many other theologians seem to lack. I felt comfortable reading his book without the Bible in one hand and a dictionary in the other, to say it in better words.
As for this book itself, I found it to be a great treatise on the problem of evil. It moves and flows in a very natural progression; from examining (that there is) the problem of evil, and moving towards solutions on personal and communal levels. I particularly liked Wrights conclusions about how Evil exhausted itself on the cross - that it spent everything it had in an still desperate attempt to tempt Jesus and failed.
All in all, an excellent book. I would give a book a good review for managing to make theology readable, and this book goes above and beyond that. Truely excellent, and I give it 5/5.
This review posted on andyszymas.blogspot.com and amazon.com; I wish to thank IVP for the review copy.
I suppose I find it hard to believe that I've never actually read a book by N.T. Wright. I've been aware of him for a long time, but I've never actually sat down to read any of his works. I've heard him quoted in books, in classes, in conversations, but until now, I didn't really know whether he was a good theologian or a good writer or both.
Now, I feel confident in saying that Wright is both. His theology (at least in Evil and the Justice of God) is quite strong, and it is clear he puts a lot of thought and research into his work. Yet Wright also manages to be understandable, which is something that many other theologians seem to lack. I felt comfortable reading his book without the Bible in one hand and a dictionary in the other, to say it in better words.
As for this book itself, I found it to be a great treatise on the problem of evil. It moves and flows in a very natural progression; from examining (that there is) the problem of evil, and moving towards solutions on personal and communal levels. I particularly liked Wrights conclusions about how Evil exhausted itself on the cross - that it spent everything it had in an still desperate attempt to tempt Jesus and failed.
All in all, an excellent book. I would give a book a good review for managing to make theology readable, and this book goes above and beyond that. Truely excellent, and I give it 5/5.
This review posted on andyszymas.blogspot.com and amazon.com; I wish to thank IVP for the review copy.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Jesus Wants to Save Christians Review
Jesus Wants to Save Christians
Rob Bell and Don Golden
I bought Rob Bell and Don Golden's new book recently. You might remember I posted a preview of the book, and thought it sounded very intriguing. I didn't know what to expect. And this book defied my expectations - it wasn't what I thought it was going to be at all.
Basically, Rob and Don outline a New Exodus theology. They describe how the entire Bible can be told in parallel to the story of the Exodus, and the Passover in particular.
I always sort of understood that the passover was significant, but I never paid attention to it. I have always been interested in the power of communion, and I never made the connection, like the authors do, between communion and passover. There is a reason that Jesus initiates communion on the Passover; he is drawing connection between his person and the lamb slain at passover.
If you're unfamiliar with New Exodus theology, this is a great book to start with. As far as I understand, this acts like a basic primer to this theology. For those who want to paint Rob (and Mars Hill) into an emergent and theological-less corner, this book closes that idea pretty thoroughly. Rob obviously has a theology, and here he has articulated it clearly.
Some thoughts:
There are some scathing indictments of America in here, so if your the ultra-patriotic America-is-God type, you may not enjoy this. There are also some jabs at the modern evangelical church.
Ben Witherington III has a great review. He points out some of the great thinking, as well as some of the issues where Rob and Don are off the mark, specifically regarding Philip and the Ethiopian.
I think that "Blood on the Doorposts of the Universe" is an appropriately epic chapter title.
If you were used to Rob's storytelling approach, you may be in for some shock here. This book has none of the stories that Rob used to such great extent in Sex God and Velvet Elvis. Another reason why it was not what I expected.
The Bottom line:
I really liked this book. Definitely Recommend it. I would make sure, as with all things, to do some research and not just blindly accept everything it it (another reason to read Ben Witherington). But bottom line - read it.
Rob Bell and Don Golden
I bought Rob Bell and Don Golden's new book recently. You might remember I posted a preview of the book, and thought it sounded very intriguing. I didn't know what to expect. And this book defied my expectations - it wasn't what I thought it was going to be at all.
Basically, Rob and Don outline a New Exodus theology. They describe how the entire Bible can be told in parallel to the story of the Exodus, and the Passover in particular.
I always sort of understood that the passover was significant, but I never paid attention to it. I have always been interested in the power of communion, and I never made the connection, like the authors do, between communion and passover. There is a reason that Jesus initiates communion on the Passover; he is drawing connection between his person and the lamb slain at passover.
If you're unfamiliar with New Exodus theology, this is a great book to start with. As far as I understand, this acts like a basic primer to this theology. For those who want to paint Rob (and Mars Hill) into an emergent and theological-less corner, this book closes that idea pretty thoroughly. Rob obviously has a theology, and here he has articulated it clearly.
Some thoughts:
There are some scathing indictments of America in here, so if your the ultra-patriotic America-is-God type, you may not enjoy this. There are also some jabs at the modern evangelical church.
Ben Witherington III has a great review. He points out some of the great thinking, as well as some of the issues where Rob and Don are off the mark, specifically regarding Philip and the Ethiopian.
I think that "Blood on the Doorposts of the Universe" is an appropriately epic chapter title.
If you were used to Rob's storytelling approach, you may be in for some shock here. This book has none of the stories that Rob used to such great extent in Sex God and Velvet Elvis. Another reason why it was not what I expected.
The Bottom line:
I really liked this book. Definitely Recommend it. I would make sure, as with all things, to do some research and not just blindly accept everything it it (another reason to read Ben Witherington). But bottom line - read it.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Random Thoughts - 3
I think the way we see God a lot has to do with Paradigms.
It's clear that some people just relate to God in different ways. I relate differently than my roommate. Than my pastor friend. Than my best friend. Than my college buddy.
And I think it has to do with this idea of paradigm.
Because God is so much bigger than any one idea, but one idea sticks with us. God is father and shepherd and groom and lover and protector all at once. There are a billion names for God in the Bible. And I think we all have one that we relate to more than any other.
For example, I have a friend who thinks of God as her groom. And that has deep meaning for her. Personally, I struggle with that paradigm, because I don't like picturing myself as a bride.
For me, I see God most closely in the idea of community. The idea that God is a perfect, three-in-one community, that our community with God was broken in the fall, and that God has been striving to restore our community - through the work of Jesus.
That's my paradigm. Whats yours?
It's clear that some people just relate to God in different ways. I relate differently than my roommate. Than my pastor friend. Than my best friend. Than my college buddy.
And I think it has to do with this idea of paradigm.
Because God is so much bigger than any one idea, but one idea sticks with us. God is father and shepherd and groom and lover and protector all at once. There are a billion names for God in the Bible. And I think we all have one that we relate to more than any other.
For example, I have a friend who thinks of God as her groom. And that has deep meaning for her. Personally, I struggle with that paradigm, because I don't like picturing myself as a bride.
For me, I see God most closely in the idea of community. The idea that God is a perfect, three-in-one community, that our community with God was broken in the fall, and that God has been striving to restore our community - through the work of Jesus.
That's my paradigm. Whats yours?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Random Thoughts - 2
This is one of those great big metathings happening in christianity right now. Who's right? The new Emergent church? The traditional Evangelical church? And let's not even talk about the fundamentalists!
Since everyone is clamoring for my take, here it is. I think that there isn't a right or a wrong. Someday, 20 years from now, we'll have synthesized the good from both into a better christianity. I think the Emergent church has... emerged... to show the Evangelical community what it is lacking. And because it is focused on what the Evangelicals are lacking, it is itself lacking.
Just like Paul and James. You wouldn't have a complete understanding of the relationship of Grace and Works without them. If Paul had never wrote, we would be stuck in a legalistic works driven world. Without James, we'd all be grace nuts and sinning left and right. They exist in tension, to create the room between where we can grow and move on.
Emergent theology has risen to create a tension in Evangelicals, to bring us to a more centered point of view. It's the very definition of synthesis.
So what does this mean for us? We move on to a point where we find the good in Emergent theologies and the good in Evangelical theologies. We don't bow down to theology, to ideas, but we use them to give us a better understanding of God and a better way to be church.
Since everyone is clamoring for my take, here it is. I think that there isn't a right or a wrong. Someday, 20 years from now, we'll have synthesized the good from both into a better christianity. I think the Emergent church has... emerged... to show the Evangelical community what it is lacking. And because it is focused on what the Evangelicals are lacking, it is itself lacking.
Just like Paul and James. You wouldn't have a complete understanding of the relationship of Grace and Works without them. If Paul had never wrote, we would be stuck in a legalistic works driven world. Without James, we'd all be grace nuts and sinning left and right. They exist in tension, to create the room between where we can grow and move on.
Emergent theology has risen to create a tension in Evangelicals, to bring us to a more centered point of view. It's the very definition of synthesis.
So what does this mean for us? We move on to a point where we find the good in Emergent theologies and the good in Evangelical theologies. We don't bow down to theology, to ideas, but we use them to give us a better understanding of God and a better way to be church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)