Attention to all who think respect for paradox is reserved for those who disregard absolute truth: "While there are certainties in the Christian faith, at the heart of the Christian story is also paradox." Here, Michel explores examples in the incarnation (of the fully God, fully man named Jesus), the kingdom (that is here already and is not yet), grace (given freely, but somehow in a way that doesn't exclude law and effort), and lament (both a complaint to God and an expression of faith). As always, Michel has insightful, beautiful things to say. I found the third section the most helpful. For a good part of my adult life I've been unlearning a penchant for legalism, and lately (studying Galatians) have been beholding the mystery of life by the Spirit that also is a life with responsibility.
The older I get, the more I discover that certainty can be elusive. I want to be clear here. I believe in certainty, but I do not believe in comprehensive certainty....We know in part. —Russ Ramsey, forward
Theological understanding should not become a substitute for faith. Studied rightly, theology should lead to awe and wonder. —Russ Ramsey, foreword
I am not talking about abandoning orthodoxy or venturing away from the faith. God forbid. I am talking about venturing deeper in. —Russ Ramsey, foreword
Examples of paradox: the three-in-one God, the incarnation, grace (6).
"'How do you keep God's story prominent in your writing rather than your own?' I've puzzled over that question for years, understanding, on the one hand, the fear that we're raising up a generation of people who know no truth beyond their personal experience, who do not understand their stories as windows into the bigger, grander story of God. And still, I can't help wondering just how exactly to point to the place where my story ends and God's story begins. When God rained bread on his hungry people and opened rivers from rocks, whose story was that?" (44).
"A bodily life, which is to say a spiritual life, is a scandalously particular life. A special life. The incarnation, resting as it does on the paradox of particularity, reminds us of this. Jesus was the second Adam, born of God, born of Mary. But his life is not simply a model of universality. God narrowed infinite possibilities to become a particular man in the fullness of time....We learn to be human from Jesus, but this isn't to say that Jesus was a generic human" (47).
"Was God...up to something as generic as womanhood and manhood in each of our lives--or was there more to be discovered for living our unique, embodied lives of faithfulness?" (47).
"Though we sing a collective song of praise in eternity, we sing it from the particular timbre of our own voices. Though we are finally gathered as the single people of people, we are not a faceless mass of humanity. Sin, like dross, is burned away: specialness is not" (48).
"To receive grace, we need humility" (116).
"The curse of the law is that we cannot keep it. The evidence of grace is that we should want to" (121).
"There is fruitful tension between grace and law, law and grace, and paying attention to that tension helps us avoid the either of legalism (which separates God's law from grace) and the or of antinomianism (which separates God's grace from obedience). It is a paradox that God's gratuitous grace should rain on the righteous and the unrighteous--and that obedience should be demanded for no other apparent reason that 'it is his word'" (125).
"Human agency is not sufficient for justification, but human agency is critical for sanctification. And this is just a fancy way of saying that we must work in a life saved by grace.
"The only kind of faith that the Bible mentions is obedient faith (Rom. 1:5)" (139).
"This is what the spiritual disciplines are: not the rain shower of God's grace but the effort to get outside" (139).
"Spiritual response, said Jesus, is an easy yoke and a light burden, which is to say something lightweight and yet something to be carried nonetheless" (141).
"Lament, with its clear-eyed appraisal of suffering alongside its commitment to finding audience with God, is a paradoxical practice of faith" (147).
"...what lament teaches me, at the very least, is that it is not equanimity that I need in the face of death, but outrage" (159).
"There is pluck to lament, pluck to its faith. Lest we think that faith is slack surrender to God's will, the testimony that we have in Scripture is a faith paradoxically emboldened to ask, to question, to challenge, to complain" (167).
"Just as there is a necessary learning in our life of desire, there is also a necessary learning in our life of grief...we must be apprenticed in God's sorrow. As J. Todd Billings explores in Rejoicing in Lament, there are distorted forms of lament, including the complaint "about interruptions in [our] comfortable, middle-class lifestyle, without an eye toward seeking God's kingdom." The troubles we regularly bring to God might be more closely examined for what they reveal about the things we treasure, the things we most vigilantly protect, the things we cannot lose" (175).
"There is a way to complain about injustice in the world that has nothing to do with faith. There is a way of hoping to repair the world that has nothing to do with relying on God (and all about trusting in one's own do-gooding). There is also a way of existing in the world that doesn't complain or grieve but rather insulates itself from the everyday travesties of injustice. But there is yet another way, a more Godlike orientation to the world, and it's the paradoxical way of weeping. It's the way of Jesus outside the tomb of one of his closes friends, tears falling despite all his reassurances about resurrection of life. That way of Jesus is the way of lament. Lament cries out its anguish to God" (182).
"God's suffering is not an answer necessarily, but is a consolation. And even if the cross does not put to rest all the questions we have for the troubles we face, it assures us that god is fit to comfort" (186).
Saturday, February 22, 2020
Friday, December 27, 2019
12.28.2019 📘 The Locust Effect by Gary Haugen and Victor Boutros
"We have come to call the unique pestilence of violence and the
punishing impact it has on efforts to lift the global four out of
poverty the locust effect" (Xi). The problem is that the world
knows that the poor suffer from hunger and disease, and people are
working to fix it. People don’t know that "endemic to being poor is a
vulnerability to violence" and because of that, efforts to change this
reality are lacking.
“For reasons that are fairly obvious, if you are reading this book, I’m pretty sure you were not among the very poorest in our world – the billions of people who are trying to live off a few dollars a day. As a result, I also know that you are probably not chronically hungry, you are not likely to die of a perfectly treatable disease, you have reasonable access to fresh water, you are a literate, and you have a reasonable shelter over your head. But there is something else I know about you. I bet you pass your days in reasonable safety from violence. You will probably not regularly being threatened with being enslaved, imprisoned, beaten, raped, or robbed. But if you were among the world’s poorest billions, you would be. That is what the world is not understand about the global poor— and that is what this book is about” (xi).
“It turns out that you can provide all manner of goods and services to the poor, as good people have been doing for decades, but if you were not restrain the boys in the community from violence into that as we have been feeling to do it for decades – then we are going to find the outcomes of our efforts quite disappointing.... no one will find in this volume any argument for reducing our traditional efforts to fight poverty. On the contrary, the billions still mired in years probably cry out for us to be double our best efforts. But one will find in these pages and urgent call to make sure that we are safe guarding citizens from being laid waste by the locusts of predatory violence” (xiii).
"Once I asked a bonded slave who was held illegally in a rock quarry why he didn't go to the local police and get help. His answer clarified things for me. 'We don't have to go to the police,' he said, 'the owner pays the police to come to us--to beat us'" (74).
"Facts are hard things--and either we deal with the facts, or the facts will deal with us" (82).
"...efforts to spur economic development and to alleviate poverty amount the poor in the developing world without addressing the forces of violence that destroy and rob them can 'seem like a mocking.' To provide Laura and Yuri with the promise of schools without addressing the forces of sexual violence that make it too dangerous to walk to or attend school seems like a mocking. To give Caleb job training or Bruno a micro-loan for his belt business without protecting them from being arbitrarily thrown into prison where Caleb loses his job and Bruno loses his business seem like a mocking. To provide Susan with tools, seeds, and training to multiply crop yields on her land without protecting her from being violently thrown off that land seems like a mocking. To provide Laura and Mariamma with AIDS education and training on making safe sexual choices without addressing the violence in the slums and brick factories where women don't get to make choices seems like a mocking. To establish a rural medical clinic in the area where Gopinath is held as a slave without addressing the violent forces that refuse to allow him to leave the quarry and take his dying kid to a doctor seems like a mocking" (98).
"In the end, outsiders can seek to provide all kinds of assistance to the poor in the developing world--to the tune of more than $3 trillion over the last half century--but if there is not restraint of the bullies who are prepared to steal every sprig of prosperity away from those who are weak, then the outcome of our assistance is going to be disappointing (as in many ways it has already proven to be)" (100).
...why do the poor suffer such evastating and disproportionately high levels of violence in the developing world--violence htat so relentlessly steals away their chance for a better life? Why does the locust effect destroy their hopes and futures with such brutal routineness?
"The most obvious--and most neglected--answer is that the poor do not get the most basic protections of law enforcement that the rest of us depend upon and unconsciously presume are there every minute of every day. The basic capacities of the law enforcement systems in the developing world are so broken that, as the UN's global study concluded, most poor people live outside the protection of law" (116).
"To be clear, a law enforcement response to violence will never be sufficient on its own. Law enforcement is necessary, but insufficient to adequately address violence. But it is necessary. To be effective, law enforcement must work in tandem with other interventions that address other complex social causes of violence--cultural norms, gender bias, economic desperation and inequality, lack of education, marginalization of vulnerable groups, etc. But these interventions will never be successful in the absence of a reasonably functioning public justice system that restrains, brings to justice, and deters violent predators" (122).
"Broken public justice systems auction impunity to the highest bidder, and when victims are too poor to purchase protection from private substitutes, impunity comes cheap" (195).
"...most law enforcement systems in the developing world are colonial relics that were never set up to protect the poor from violence (but to protect the regime from the poor), and that, tragically, these systems have never been fundamentally re-engineered to serve the common people" (197). "Across much of the developing world, the instruments of law enforcement failed to evolve because the authoritarian regimes and political elites that came to power in the developing world found that the colonial forms of policing very conveniently served their interests. Indigenous political and economic elites found that modern law enforcement models (with their emphasis on accounability to the community and general public) would be threatening" (179). Furthermore, "elites with wealth and power in the developing world have abandoned these dysfunctional public justice systems and have set up systems of private security that protect them from violence. They have financed the growth of massive private security forces that replace the need to rely on public policing, and they have abandoned the clogged and corrupt court systems to dysfunction and decay because they have found private means fro resolving disputes in their favor" (197). Finally, "the massive global movement to address poverty in the developing world over the last half century has not made a meaningful effort to address the problem" (198). "Only about 1 percent of aid from institutions like USAID or the World Bank can even be plausibly described as targeting improvements in justice systems in the developing world so that they better protect the poor from violence" (203). This is somewhat discouraging, but also hopeful in a way, because it indicates that if we try, things could change.
3 agendas that seem worth the risk: security vacuums, international crime ("when [wealthy countries find] the criminal violence threatens to spill over and affect their own societies" 208), and attracting business and commercial investment.
"In every society there are people, interests, and institutions that are intentionally trying to make a justice system fail and to make poor people and marginalized groups weaker and more vulnerable to violence. They are seeking to advance the personal, economic, political, and exploitative interests through violence and fear—and they are threatened by a functioning criminal justice system that would restrain their coercive power. And so they vigorously oppose reform" (230).
We look back at now-reasonably-funcitoning criminal justice systems and see that they all were once corrupt, racist, and ineffective, and this gives hope. We see examples of collaborations and work being done to reform areas of criminal justice in areas of the world. It is possible.
“For reasons that are fairly obvious, if you are reading this book, I’m pretty sure you were not among the very poorest in our world – the billions of people who are trying to live off a few dollars a day. As a result, I also know that you are probably not chronically hungry, you are not likely to die of a perfectly treatable disease, you have reasonable access to fresh water, you are a literate, and you have a reasonable shelter over your head. But there is something else I know about you. I bet you pass your days in reasonable safety from violence. You will probably not regularly being threatened with being enslaved, imprisoned, beaten, raped, or robbed. But if you were among the world’s poorest billions, you would be. That is what the world is not understand about the global poor— and that is what this book is about” (xi).
“It turns out that you can provide all manner of goods and services to the poor, as good people have been doing for decades, but if you were not restrain the boys in the community from violence into that as we have been feeling to do it for decades – then we are going to find the outcomes of our efforts quite disappointing.... no one will find in this volume any argument for reducing our traditional efforts to fight poverty. On the contrary, the billions still mired in years probably cry out for us to be double our best efforts. But one will find in these pages and urgent call to make sure that we are safe guarding citizens from being laid waste by the locusts of predatory violence” (xiii).
"Once I asked a bonded slave who was held illegally in a rock quarry why he didn't go to the local police and get help. His answer clarified things for me. 'We don't have to go to the police,' he said, 'the owner pays the police to come to us--to beat us'" (74).
"Facts are hard things--and either we deal with the facts, or the facts will deal with us" (82).
"...efforts to spur economic development and to alleviate poverty amount the poor in the developing world without addressing the forces of violence that destroy and rob them can 'seem like a mocking.' To provide Laura and Yuri with the promise of schools without addressing the forces of sexual violence that make it too dangerous to walk to or attend school seems like a mocking. To give Caleb job training or Bruno a micro-loan for his belt business without protecting them from being arbitrarily thrown into prison where Caleb loses his job and Bruno loses his business seem like a mocking. To provide Susan with tools, seeds, and training to multiply crop yields on her land without protecting her from being violently thrown off that land seems like a mocking. To provide Laura and Mariamma with AIDS education and training on making safe sexual choices without addressing the violence in the slums and brick factories where women don't get to make choices seems like a mocking. To establish a rural medical clinic in the area where Gopinath is held as a slave without addressing the violent forces that refuse to allow him to leave the quarry and take his dying kid to a doctor seems like a mocking" (98).
"In the end, outsiders can seek to provide all kinds of assistance to the poor in the developing world--to the tune of more than $3 trillion over the last half century--but if there is not restraint of the bullies who are prepared to steal every sprig of prosperity away from those who are weak, then the outcome of our assistance is going to be disappointing (as in many ways it has already proven to be)" (100).
...why do the poor suffer such evastating and disproportionately high levels of violence in the developing world--violence htat so relentlessly steals away their chance for a better life? Why does the locust effect destroy their hopes and futures with such brutal routineness?
"The most obvious--and most neglected--answer is that the poor do not get the most basic protections of law enforcement that the rest of us depend upon and unconsciously presume are there every minute of every day. The basic capacities of the law enforcement systems in the developing world are so broken that, as the UN's global study concluded, most poor people live outside the protection of law" (116).
"To be clear, a law enforcement response to violence will never be sufficient on its own. Law enforcement is necessary, but insufficient to adequately address violence. But it is necessary. To be effective, law enforcement must work in tandem with other interventions that address other complex social causes of violence--cultural norms, gender bias, economic desperation and inequality, lack of education, marginalization of vulnerable groups, etc. But these interventions will never be successful in the absence of a reasonably functioning public justice system that restrains, brings to justice, and deters violent predators" (122).
"Broken public justice systems auction impunity to the highest bidder, and when victims are too poor to purchase protection from private substitutes, impunity comes cheap" (195).
"...most law enforcement systems in the developing world are colonial relics that were never set up to protect the poor from violence (but to protect the regime from the poor), and that, tragically, these systems have never been fundamentally re-engineered to serve the common people" (197). "Across much of the developing world, the instruments of law enforcement failed to evolve because the authoritarian regimes and political elites that came to power in the developing world found that the colonial forms of policing very conveniently served their interests. Indigenous political and economic elites found that modern law enforcement models (with their emphasis on accounability to the community and general public) would be threatening" (179). Furthermore, "elites with wealth and power in the developing world have abandoned these dysfunctional public justice systems and have set up systems of private security that protect them from violence. They have financed the growth of massive private security forces that replace the need to rely on public policing, and they have abandoned the clogged and corrupt court systems to dysfunction and decay because they have found private means fro resolving disputes in their favor" (197). Finally, "the massive global movement to address poverty in the developing world over the last half century has not made a meaningful effort to address the problem" (198). "Only about 1 percent of aid from institutions like USAID or the World Bank can even be plausibly described as targeting improvements in justice systems in the developing world so that they better protect the poor from violence" (203). This is somewhat discouraging, but also hopeful in a way, because it indicates that if we try, things could change.
3 agendas that seem worth the risk: security vacuums, international crime ("when [wealthy countries find] the criminal violence threatens to spill over and affect their own societies" 208), and attracting business and commercial investment.
"In every society there are people, interests, and institutions that are intentionally trying to make a justice system fail and to make poor people and marginalized groups weaker and more vulnerable to violence. They are seeking to advance the personal, economic, political, and exploitative interests through violence and fear—and they are threatened by a functioning criminal justice system that would restrain their coercive power. And so they vigorously oppose reform" (230).
We look back at now-reasonably-funcitoning criminal justice systems and see that they all were once corrupt, racist, and ineffective, and this gives hope. We see examples of collaborations and work being done to reform areas of criminal justice in areas of the world. It is possible.
Monday, November 25, 2019
11.25.2019 📘 Vindicating the Vixens: Revisiting the Sexualized, Vilified, and Marginalized Women of the Bible, Ed. Dr. Sandra Glahn
I've had a tough time putting words to why I'm so grateful for this book, but essentially:
1--The observations raised by these writers do bring to light many examples of the women of the Bible being vilified by extratextual sources. Pointing out assumptions applied and proliferated by us moderns, carefully observing cultural context of the time, and relentlessly returning to the text itself are necessary practices, used here and casting these women in a different light. A less shady light, if you will. This is important not only because we want to get their stories right but because the closer we get to seeing their stories right, the better we see the God they related to and who included their stories in his word.
-
2--This call to examine filters and assumptions that I have as a person and inherent in what I've been taught about the Word, the weighty endeavor of reading this book God has given as revelation of himself as it was meant to be read, and the idea that even simple little I am able of learning from the text itself and of testing what I am taught against the text itself have all been feeling more and more immense over the past few months, partly because of this book. I find myself wanting to read more scholarly books about the Bible (something I never, ever, thought I would say,) and to check them against Scripture even more (and against other viewpoints).
-
"We are always reexamining our biblical interpretation, because we understand that every generation has its unique brands of blindness...Additionally, we all come to the text with preconceived ideas, so it stands to reason that our biblical interpretation has some fallibility. Instead of fearing a re-examination, we should pursue a constant reexamination in order to challenge ourselves toward growth. The alternative is to assume we have it all figured out and cling to the status quo (Rouse, 27)."
Also, the profits are donated to IJM!! (insert praise hands emoji)
"Doubtless, sin is an equal opportunity enterprise. And certainly the desire of the team of scholars assembled for this project is not to vindicate women whose actions we should all despise. Nor is it our goal to make men look bad and women look good.
"Our motivation is to handle faithfully the biblical text, which involves bringing to light a number of women labeled as 'bad girls' who deserve a fresh look" (Glahn, 13).
"One of the greatest surprises--and pleasures--for me as I edited this work was to find, as the chapters came in, that as slandered or ignored women in the Bible were vindicated, we recovered more than just a sense of how we should honor them. We could also see more clearly the point that the biblical author was actually trying to make by including these women in their stories. And time and again, God's heart for the silenced, the marginalized, the powerless, the Gentile, the outsider, was what had been missing" (Glahn, 16).
"For the first forty years of my life, my library of Christian authors consisted primarily of white western males. But what happens when the task of biblical interpretation is faithfully applied by an Asian woman and a Latino man? Does an Ethiopian believer see things that a European misses? Does this Aussie bloke see things differently from how an American might? (Consider what we envision when we hear the word 'football.') The truth is that never before has there been such a diversity of eyes on the text in conversation with one another. It is no longer just males who do biblical interpretation, nor is it just people form your demographic grouping. And this is a wonderful development. WE do well to listen to what everyone has to say, especially because the new eyes are just as well educated (sometimes more), trained (sometimes more) and godly( sometimes more) as you and I are" (Rouse, 17).
"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity"--Rupertus Meldenius (c. 1627, quoted on p. 17).
"Before we go any further, I want to be really frank. This is not some book written by theologically liberal, wannabe scholars attempting to be politically correct or manipulating the text in order to be culturally relevant. The contributors to this book love God's Word. And we don't see our task as reinterpreting the text to make it more relevant or more acceptable than it already is--as if that were possible. Our goal is simply to study it and make sure we are being faithful to it. WE are not questioning the inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility of the Scriptures. We are, however, questioning the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of our human interpretation of them" (Rouse, 22).
"So the Word that we have is the written Word. It's divine in its source, absolutely; but it's also literature. And as a work of literature, we must--and this is critical--discuss and study it as literature without diminishing its divine origin" (Rouse, 22).
"Contrary to the biblical depiction of the marriage relationship where 'a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh (2:24), in patriarchal cultures the wife is absorbed into her husband's family. She becomes their property and comes under the thumb of her husband's family" (James, 38).
"My tradition esteems the Bible and grants it authority. So what does it mean when one person's interpretation points up and another's points down, yet we're all standing alone on the Word of God? Are we reading the same text? How do we disagree with people we love? What happens to our faith when we reject an idea we would have energetically defended ten years ago?" (Bleeker, 50).
"If the word choices and tone in Joshua implicate the two Hebrew spies in both potential sexual dalliance and mild stupidity while elevating Rahab to the role of unlikely heroine, what does that mean?" (Bleeker, 54).
"[In his genealogy], Matthew is setting up his reader,s the Jewish faithful, to accept cultural and racial outsiders--including the dreaded Canaanites--into the community through belief, not blood" (Bleeker, 55).
"While the levirate law obligated the brother-in-law--the levir--to marry the brother's widow, in the case of Ruth no brother-in-law existed. Yahweh's Law, however, had a build-in family care policy, even if no levir lived.
"Naomi names Boaz, not their levir, but by a more accurate name--their go'el. The go'el functioned as one who restored family wholeness. By definition, this relative 'acted as a kinsman or did the part of the next of kin, in taking the kinsman's widow.' Another way to accurately describe the go'el would be to call him a kinsman-redeemer" (68).
"The connection Ruth shares with Tamar is one many of us might miss. But needing someone to fulfill the levirate marriage responsibilities, they both chose to act when the men who should have shown hesed remained passive. These women's esteem of Yahweh's law must be commended, no criticized" (Legaspi, 76).
"To the humans, God grants dominion over the rest of creation, a clear statement of the hierarchy in the creation order, and this dominion surely includes being mediators of blessing to the creatures that God has already blessed. In other words, dominion is not domination and destruction but compassionate care for thos ecreatures and the environments in which they live. God's intention for his imagers is that they be mediators of blessing to blessed creatures. (Kreider, 135).
"We serve a God of justice; to blame one sex for seduction when both the man and the woman are cupable is unjust. It is ironic that the woman is blamed for being easily deceived by the serpent and then also blamed for being as seductive as the serpent in a fallen world. So which is it?" (Kreider, 146).
"Finally, as long as there is conflict between men and women and that conflict is rooted in gender differences, it will be hard for us to live out the command of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35). It is hard to love one that is feared" (Kreider, 146).
"As for the remainder of the Christian canon, Sarah is referred to in Isaiah as 'the mother of Israel the nation' (Isa. 51:2), in Romans as 'the mother of the promise' (Rom. 9:9); in Hebrews as 'the mother of faith' (Heb. 11:11); and in 1 Peter as the model wife who submits to her husband (1 Peter 3:6)" (Merrill, 155).
(In rebuttal of the idea that Deborah was only prophetess because "a good man is hard to find":) "First, the lead person, Deborah--woman of light and fire--is portrayed consistently in a positive way throughout her story and song...
Second, there is indeed a good man in this text: Barak, the som of Abinoam, who agrees to go when he is called. His insistence on Deborah's presence implicitly invokes God's presence and guidance through the divinely inspired prophet and judge. She does not condemn him, though she adds the caveat that he must serve without the customary honor given to military leaders in battle. Barak demonstrates his faith in, and honor of, God by going, despits this challenging condition. As a result, he obtains an even greater honor: being listed in the book of Hebrews among the notable persons of faith, of whom this world is not worthy" (Pierce, 209).
"Writing in the sixteenth century, Calvin pairs Deborah and Huldah stating, 'God doubtless wished to raise them on high to shame the men, and obliquiely to show them their slothfulness. Whatever may be the reason, women have sometimes enjoyed the prophetic gift'" (McKirland, 224). (The author then goes on to say why he doesn't think this fits with other textual evidence. I find it interesting that this great Christian thinker thought this explanation made the most sense.)
1--The observations raised by these writers do bring to light many examples of the women of the Bible being vilified by extratextual sources. Pointing out assumptions applied and proliferated by us moderns, carefully observing cultural context of the time, and relentlessly returning to the text itself are necessary practices, used here and casting these women in a different light. A less shady light, if you will. This is important not only because we want to get their stories right but because the closer we get to seeing their stories right, the better we see the God they related to and who included their stories in his word.
-
2--This call to examine filters and assumptions that I have as a person and inherent in what I've been taught about the Word, the weighty endeavor of reading this book God has given as revelation of himself as it was meant to be read, and the idea that even simple little I am able of learning from the text itself and of testing what I am taught against the text itself have all been feeling more and more immense over the past few months, partly because of this book. I find myself wanting to read more scholarly books about the Bible (something I never, ever, thought I would say,) and to check them against Scripture even more (and against other viewpoints).
-
"We are always reexamining our biblical interpretation, because we understand that every generation has its unique brands of blindness...Additionally, we all come to the text with preconceived ideas, so it stands to reason that our biblical interpretation has some fallibility. Instead of fearing a re-examination, we should pursue a constant reexamination in order to challenge ourselves toward growth. The alternative is to assume we have it all figured out and cling to the status quo (Rouse, 27)."
Also, the profits are donated to IJM!! (insert praise hands emoji)
"Doubtless, sin is an equal opportunity enterprise. And certainly the desire of the team of scholars assembled for this project is not to vindicate women whose actions we should all despise. Nor is it our goal to make men look bad and women look good.
"Our motivation is to handle faithfully the biblical text, which involves bringing to light a number of women labeled as 'bad girls' who deserve a fresh look" (Glahn, 13).
"One of the greatest surprises--and pleasures--for me as I edited this work was to find, as the chapters came in, that as slandered or ignored women in the Bible were vindicated, we recovered more than just a sense of how we should honor them. We could also see more clearly the point that the biblical author was actually trying to make by including these women in their stories. And time and again, God's heart for the silenced, the marginalized, the powerless, the Gentile, the outsider, was what had been missing" (Glahn, 16).
"For the first forty years of my life, my library of Christian authors consisted primarily of white western males. But what happens when the task of biblical interpretation is faithfully applied by an Asian woman and a Latino man? Does an Ethiopian believer see things that a European misses? Does this Aussie bloke see things differently from how an American might? (Consider what we envision when we hear the word 'football.') The truth is that never before has there been such a diversity of eyes on the text in conversation with one another. It is no longer just males who do biblical interpretation, nor is it just people form your demographic grouping. And this is a wonderful development. WE do well to listen to what everyone has to say, especially because the new eyes are just as well educated (sometimes more), trained (sometimes more) and godly( sometimes more) as you and I are" (Rouse, 17).
"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity"--Rupertus Meldenius (c. 1627, quoted on p. 17).
"Before we go any further, I want to be really frank. This is not some book written by theologically liberal, wannabe scholars attempting to be politically correct or manipulating the text in order to be culturally relevant. The contributors to this book love God's Word. And we don't see our task as reinterpreting the text to make it more relevant or more acceptable than it already is--as if that were possible. Our goal is simply to study it and make sure we are being faithful to it. WE are not questioning the inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility of the Scriptures. We are, however, questioning the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of our human interpretation of them" (Rouse, 22).
"So the Word that we have is the written Word. It's divine in its source, absolutely; but it's also literature. And as a work of literature, we must--and this is critical--discuss and study it as literature without diminishing its divine origin" (Rouse, 22).
"Contrary to the biblical depiction of the marriage relationship where 'a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh (2:24), in patriarchal cultures the wife is absorbed into her husband's family. She becomes their property and comes under the thumb of her husband's family" (James, 38).
"My tradition esteems the Bible and grants it authority. So what does it mean when one person's interpretation points up and another's points down, yet we're all standing alone on the Word of God? Are we reading the same text? How do we disagree with people we love? What happens to our faith when we reject an idea we would have energetically defended ten years ago?" (Bleeker, 50).
"If the word choices and tone in Joshua implicate the two Hebrew spies in both potential sexual dalliance and mild stupidity while elevating Rahab to the role of unlikely heroine, what does that mean?" (Bleeker, 54).
"[In his genealogy], Matthew is setting up his reader,s the Jewish faithful, to accept cultural and racial outsiders--including the dreaded Canaanites--into the community through belief, not blood" (Bleeker, 55).
"While the levirate law obligated the brother-in-law--the levir--to marry the brother's widow, in the case of Ruth no brother-in-law existed. Yahweh's Law, however, had a build-in family care policy, even if no levir lived.
"Naomi names Boaz, not their levir, but by a more accurate name--their go'el. The go'el functioned as one who restored family wholeness. By definition, this relative 'acted as a kinsman or did the part of the next of kin, in taking the kinsman's widow.' Another way to accurately describe the go'el would be to call him a kinsman-redeemer" (68).
"The connection Ruth shares with Tamar is one many of us might miss. But needing someone to fulfill the levirate marriage responsibilities, they both chose to act when the men who should have shown hesed remained passive. These women's esteem of Yahweh's law must be commended, no criticized" (Legaspi, 76).
"To the humans, God grants dominion over the rest of creation, a clear statement of the hierarchy in the creation order, and this dominion surely includes being mediators of blessing to the creatures that God has already blessed. In other words, dominion is not domination and destruction but compassionate care for thos ecreatures and the environments in which they live. God's intention for his imagers is that they be mediators of blessing to blessed creatures. (Kreider, 135).
"We serve a God of justice; to blame one sex for seduction when both the man and the woman are cupable is unjust. It is ironic that the woman is blamed for being easily deceived by the serpent and then also blamed for being as seductive as the serpent in a fallen world. So which is it?" (Kreider, 146).
"Finally, as long as there is conflict between men and women and that conflict is rooted in gender differences, it will be hard for us to live out the command of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35). It is hard to love one that is feared" (Kreider, 146).
"As for the remainder of the Christian canon, Sarah is referred to in Isaiah as 'the mother of Israel the nation' (Isa. 51:2), in Romans as 'the mother of the promise' (Rom. 9:9); in Hebrews as 'the mother of faith' (Heb. 11:11); and in 1 Peter as the model wife who submits to her husband (1 Peter 3:6)" (Merrill, 155).
(In rebuttal of the idea that Deborah was only prophetess because "a good man is hard to find":) "First, the lead person, Deborah--woman of light and fire--is portrayed consistently in a positive way throughout her story and song...
Second, there is indeed a good man in this text: Barak, the som of Abinoam, who agrees to go when he is called. His insistence on Deborah's presence implicitly invokes God's presence and guidance through the divinely inspired prophet and judge. She does not condemn him, though she adds the caveat that he must serve without the customary honor given to military leaders in battle. Barak demonstrates his faith in, and honor of, God by going, despits this challenging condition. As a result, he obtains an even greater honor: being listed in the book of Hebrews among the notable persons of faith, of whom this world is not worthy" (Pierce, 209).
"Writing in the sixteenth century, Calvin pairs Deborah and Huldah stating, 'God doubtless wished to raise them on high to shame the men, and obliquiely to show them their slothfulness. Whatever may be the reason, women have sometimes enjoyed the prophetic gift'" (McKirland, 224). (The author then goes on to say why he doesn't think this fits with other textual evidence. I find it interesting that this great Christian thinker thought this explanation made the most sense.)
Monday, November 18, 2019
October 2019
Teach Us To Want
With the Fire on High
The Next Right Thing
Ayesha at Last
Persuasion
The Death of Ivan Ilych
Finding Lost Words
Teach Us To Want-- I appreciate this book. I think I've been walking a similar path to Michel's recently, and many of her sources (most of those she quoted are influencers of my views too...Lewis, Keller, Augustine, etc). It seemed heavily influenced by ideas I've heard best taught by James KA Smith, and almost felt like her working out these ideas for herself. It was at once honest and vulnerable, and reasonable and Scriptural. I guess I was hoping for more new insights, but the truth is I still need to work out what I've already heard.
"Standing painfully aware of the gap lying between human and holy, his [Isaiah's] own reflection in the mirror undoes him. This is the double vision of prayer: we see God and we see ourselves. This is also the double vision of holy desire. As those redeemed in Christ, we begin wanting holiness, yet recognize that our desires continue in the qualities of being human. Saved though we are, we bring to our desires a limited range of understanding. We want from God, and yet fail to grasp the height, depth, and breadth and width of God's holy purposes for our lives, and for the world. We are growing in foodness and yet are capable of persisting in myopic selfishness."
With the Fire On High-- "Sometimes focusing on what you can control is the only way to lessen the pang in your chest when you think about the things you can't" (28). Very well-done, beautifully written, and primes one for inspiration in the kitchen. Still, my heart broke for Emani and her lack of nurturing at 17. She was still a child, and her burdens, though she handled everything courageously, were keenly felt.
The Next Right Thing--
"Desire often lives next door to grief inside the soul. Access the grief, and you wake up the longing as well" (56).
"Yes, he wants to feel like he's contributing to society. Yes, he needs ot provide for his family--we both do. The provision doesn't only mean money...You know that even with enough money you may still not feel provided for. Because provision also looks like support, like communication, like turning toward the people you love rather than away from them. Provision looks like staying in the room together when it would be easier to walk out" (59).
"Let's agree that knowing what we want is not the same as getting what we want, and certainly not the same as demanding what we want. When I honestly admit what I most long for in the presence of Jesus, I can more quickly accept when it doesn't work out. I can talk to him about it, admit my heartbreak, and receive what he has to give in place of it" (91).
"We are kingdom people and, in a very real way, our time doesn't belong to us; it all belongs to God. The problem is we've misunderstood what that means. Instead of being people who look within and discern where he is leading us, we look around and overcommit ourselves. When the whispers of our calling try to speak to us, we don't have the time or the space to listen" (178).
"You could start by acknowledging the fear. I can't tell you how many times I've swept an emotion aside because it didn't feel valid. Overwhelmed at the garden center? What a luxury! There are people with real problems in the world! Well, that 's true. What is also true is we can't move through what we refuse to acknowledge. And usually, the small things are simply arrows pointing to some bigger things" (201).
I appreciate this book and all of Emily P. Freeman's works. She's taught me so much about life, about how to be human in a sustainable way. She says her job is to help you create room for your soul to breathe, and I admit, she's helped me realize I have a living soul at all, rather than just a brain.
Favorite chapters 8, 19-22.
Ayesha At Last
This was a fun Pride and Prejudice re-telling. Like Unmarriageable, the characters are in a modern-day, Muslim culture, and the parallels between Austen's time are remarkable. Unlike Unmarriageable, Jalaluddin's story is a loose re-telling, maybe more "inspired by" the original. I found the mistaken identity trope a bit annoying, but I think she was doing something with a Shakespeare reference that I didn't initially see. Between that and Ayesha's unhealthy 9 traits, I didn't find her as likeable as I may have wished, but this was a fun read.
Persuasion
Austen is fun, and she is particularly scathing in this work. There were too many characters for me to get to know any of them well enough, though, including the protagonist's love interest, which made the happy ending a bit anticlimactic for me. But you gotta love the Crofts' marriage, what a delight.
The Death of Ivan IlychThis one landed on my TBR when it was mentioned in @atul.gawande's Being Mortal. And wow, it’s amazing how this account of the end of life from 1886 resembles what happens in today’s healthcare system (in my experience as a nurse, at least)! An interesting, if disturbing, read for sure.
Finding Lost Words
Easily one of the most influential books of the year. I'm so glad I read this. As I continue on my journey, I more and more see my need for a theology that can provide a framework able to support the real upheavals and struggles inherent to the human condition. I'll have to write a whole post on this one.
With the Fire on High
The Next Right Thing
Ayesha at Last
Persuasion
The Death of Ivan Ilych
Finding Lost Words
Teach Us To Want-- I appreciate this book. I think I've been walking a similar path to Michel's recently, and many of her sources (most of those she quoted are influencers of my views too...Lewis, Keller, Augustine, etc). It seemed heavily influenced by ideas I've heard best taught by James KA Smith, and almost felt like her working out these ideas for herself. It was at once honest and vulnerable, and reasonable and Scriptural. I guess I was hoping for more new insights, but the truth is I still need to work out what I've already heard.
"Standing painfully aware of the gap lying between human and holy, his [Isaiah's] own reflection in the mirror undoes him. This is the double vision of prayer: we see God and we see ourselves. This is also the double vision of holy desire. As those redeemed in Christ, we begin wanting holiness, yet recognize that our desires continue in the qualities of being human. Saved though we are, we bring to our desires a limited range of understanding. We want from God, and yet fail to grasp the height, depth, and breadth and width of God's holy purposes for our lives, and for the world. We are growing in foodness and yet are capable of persisting in myopic selfishness."
With the Fire On High-- "Sometimes focusing on what you can control is the only way to lessen the pang in your chest when you think about the things you can't" (28). Very well-done, beautifully written, and primes one for inspiration in the kitchen. Still, my heart broke for Emani and her lack of nurturing at 17. She was still a child, and her burdens, though she handled everything courageously, were keenly felt.
The Next Right Thing--
"Desire often lives next door to grief inside the soul. Access the grief, and you wake up the longing as well" (56).
"Yes, he wants to feel like he's contributing to society. Yes, he needs ot provide for his family--we both do. The provision doesn't only mean money...You know that even with enough money you may still not feel provided for. Because provision also looks like support, like communication, like turning toward the people you love rather than away from them. Provision looks like staying in the room together when it would be easier to walk out" (59).
"Let's agree that knowing what we want is not the same as getting what we want, and certainly not the same as demanding what we want. When I honestly admit what I most long for in the presence of Jesus, I can more quickly accept when it doesn't work out. I can talk to him about it, admit my heartbreak, and receive what he has to give in place of it" (91).
"We are kingdom people and, in a very real way, our time doesn't belong to us; it all belongs to God. The problem is we've misunderstood what that means. Instead of being people who look within and discern where he is leading us, we look around and overcommit ourselves. When the whispers of our calling try to speak to us, we don't have the time or the space to listen" (178).
"You could start by acknowledging the fear. I can't tell you how many times I've swept an emotion aside because it didn't feel valid. Overwhelmed at the garden center? What a luxury! There are people with real problems in the world! Well, that 's true. What is also true is we can't move through what we refuse to acknowledge. And usually, the small things are simply arrows pointing to some bigger things" (201).
I appreciate this book and all of Emily P. Freeman's works. She's taught me so much about life, about how to be human in a sustainable way. She says her job is to help you create room for your soul to breathe, and I admit, she's helped me realize I have a living soul at all, rather than just a brain.
Favorite chapters 8, 19-22.
Ayesha At Last
This was a fun Pride and Prejudice re-telling. Like Unmarriageable, the characters are in a modern-day, Muslim culture, and the parallels between Austen's time are remarkable. Unlike Unmarriageable, Jalaluddin's story is a loose re-telling, maybe more "inspired by" the original. I found the mistaken identity trope a bit annoying, but I think she was doing something with a Shakespeare reference that I didn't initially see. Between that and Ayesha's unhealthy 9 traits, I didn't find her as likeable as I may have wished, but this was a fun read.
Persuasion
Austen is fun, and she is particularly scathing in this work. There were too many characters for me to get to know any of them well enough, though, including the protagonist's love interest, which made the happy ending a bit anticlimactic for me. But you gotta love the Crofts' marriage, what a delight.
The Death of Ivan IlychThis one landed on my TBR when it was mentioned in @atul.gawande's Being Mortal. And wow, it’s amazing how this account of the end of life from 1886 resembles what happens in today’s healthcare system (in my experience as a nurse, at least)! An interesting, if disturbing, read for sure.
Finding Lost Words
Easily one of the most influential books of the year. I'm so glad I read this. As I continue on my journey, I more and more see my need for a theology that can provide a framework able to support the real upheavals and struggles inherent to the human condition. I'll have to write a whole post on this one.
Saturday, October 19, 2019
The Wondering Years by Knox McCoy
"[Defining yourself through church] is a cultural affiliation before
it's even a personal one. It's a tricky task to deconstruct what you
believe versus what you've just inherited through participation."
"...I'd had a pretty charmed life, and while that was great, no good thing can come from an existence where you are rarely required to be uncomfortable....Privilege you don't understand is massively dangerous."
"No one was around to help Harry fight his nemesis. No Hermione, no Ron, no Dumbledore, no anyone. No one was there to bail him out, and he alone was responsible for his choices. I know Harry Potter is about so much, but for me, it's about the process of growing up and the realization that all of the layers of protection in your life--your parents, your friends, your mentors, your church-- they all exist to support you, but they do not exist to do your life for you."
"...I'd had a pretty charmed life, and while that was great, no good thing can come from an existence where you are rarely required to be uncomfortable....Privilege you don't understand is massively dangerous."
"No one was around to help Harry fight his nemesis. No Hermione, no Ron, no Dumbledore, no anyone. No one was there to bail him out, and he alone was responsible for his choices. I know Harry Potter is about so much, but for me, it's about the process of growing up and the realization that all of the layers of protection in your life--your parents, your friends, your mentors, your church-- they all exist to support you, but they do not exist to do your life for you."
Monday, October 7, 2019
September 2019.2--Gulp by Mary Roach
Pros: I find intestinal talk fascinating, not gross. There were so many interesting stories here. (The only part where I said, "TMI" was the discussions how the posterior portion of the tract can be used for pleasure. All the tales of gas and poop were met with curiosity.) Her humor had me chuckling at times (and, in all honesty, feeling she was trying too hard at other times.) And then she said, "The extent to which healthcare bureaucracy stands in the way of better patient care is at occasionally outstanding" and I literally raised my hands in praise.
I recognize that all of my cons make me sound like a grumpy, scouling nun, but here they are.
Cons: It was kind of all over the place. It seemed a series of rabbit trails that did all happen to pertain to the gastrointestinal system, but somehow were disconnected. I also disliked Roach's tone which felt a bit haughty, like she had it all figured out and looked down her nose at all those foolish folks of yesteryear. Maybe I'm extra sensitive to that because it seemed she was also looking down at those who belief the crazy stories of the Bible. It seems obvious to Roach that if a person blind from birth describes the first people they see upon regaining their sight as "looking like trees walking around," Jesus obviously doesn't know how to heal people; also that since she's proven Jonah survival in a fish/whale/shark stomach to be scientifically impossible, that settles it. I just don't get it. We know it's crazy. That's why it's called a miracle. There's nothing surprising about the story if it can be replicated in a lab. Here's the thing: when I believe in a God that claims to have an actual virgin for a mother, and then to have risen from the actual dead, your telling me Jonah's story is implausible isn't really going to change my mind. Just saying.
Interesting and I'm glad I read it. Would recommend with my caveats.
I recognize that all of my cons make me sound like a grumpy, scouling nun, but here they are.
Cons: It was kind of all over the place. It seemed a series of rabbit trails that did all happen to pertain to the gastrointestinal system, but somehow were disconnected. I also disliked Roach's tone which felt a bit haughty, like she had it all figured out and looked down her nose at all those foolish folks of yesteryear. Maybe I'm extra sensitive to that because it seemed she was also looking down at those who belief the crazy stories of the Bible. It seems obvious to Roach that if a person blind from birth describes the first people they see upon regaining their sight as "looking like trees walking around," Jesus obviously doesn't know how to heal people; also that since she's proven Jonah survival in a fish/whale/shark stomach to be scientifically impossible, that settles it. I just don't get it. We know it's crazy. That's why it's called a miracle. There's nothing surprising about the story if it can be replicated in a lab. Here's the thing: when I believe in a God that claims to have an actual virgin for a mother, and then to have risen from the actual dead, your telling me Jonah's story is implausible isn't really going to change my mind. Just saying.
Interesting and I'm glad I read it. Would recommend with my caveats.
Monday, September 30, 2019
September 2019.1--Crazy Busy by Kevin DeYoung
I've been trying not to discredit books just because their narrators/authors are imperfect. (See Where'd You Go Bernadette and Peace Like A River, even Biased and Sacred Rhythms.) Every author, by nature of their humanity, has biases and blind spots, brokenness and sin, that often come through in their work. I am trying to cultivate discernment... (as the idea has been illuminated to me by Phylicia Masonheimer)... learn to notice and learn from the good in imperfect works, rather than avoiding all viewpoints and conclusions different from mine. (The list of those agreeing with me is painfully short, anyway.)
That is why I'm pushing through and reading Crazy Busy. Others have said it is good, and I love the premise, but the first BIG hurdle was the the unlikeability of DeYoung's voice. I don't actually know that much about DeYoung, what he has said or failed to say, what he stands for or what controversies might surround him personally. In my mind he is part of the blob that is the Gospel Coalition, which I appreciate for many of its teachings, but also find saddening due to the lack of teaching, and apparent willful ignorance, of other things I find very important. In my mind, he's another smart white guy that others look to for teaching, and really he just keeps teaching because everyone is listening, and they keep listening because they're taught that that's what they should do. (I call it like I see it.) Anyway, this book's dedication only reinforced these ideas. I don't even know all the guys he was referencing by their first names, but I'm imagining I recognize at least Matt Chandler and Mark Dever, and probably definitely CJ Mahaney (cringe). Furthermore, his humble-bragging (that denied being humble bragging, which only made it that much more conspicuous) at the beginning only drove a larger wedge between him as a writer and me as a reader. The fact that he admitted doesn't practice the things he's going to write about (because he's too busy) made me question why in the world I should listen to him. It was clear that the people are just demanding his opinions on things, so he had to write a book on it.
But, onward and forward, because the author can be a flawed and even unlikeable vessel and still have true and helpful insights on a topic.
And good insights I found, indeed.
In seeking to unroot sin issues and bad habits, in addition asking myself what Biblical commands I am disobeying, it is helpful to ask: "What self-imposed commands am I obeying that I should ignore?" (31).
"We get worked up and crazy busy in all the wrong ways because we are more concerned about looking good than with doing good" (41).
He points out that there are many "lazy" people out there who "need to get radical for Jesus" (44), but that many people are already have too much on their plate, and they need to learn that they can't take action on every worthy cause. They need to realize their limits. "Is it possible that God is not asking me to do anything about sex trafficking right now?" (47). I mean, honestly, I get annoyed about this coming from him, because my perception is that DeYoung's whole camp is so busy writing books and reading each other's books, and getting their theology right, and tweeting about gender roles, etc, that nobody seems to have time to make important issues like sex trafficking an actionable issue. But point taken. We can't all do it all. And honestly, perhaps my the pain of my annoyance comes from the plank in my own eye, because my MO is to be busy reading about all the issues and never act on any of them.
Future reading: Beyond Mission: A Passion for Christ, a Heart for Mission about how life is more than issues and tragedies and work, it is about the hope and joy of Christ. Will look into it.
He quotes John Piper: "We should care about all suffering, especially eternal suffering" (49) but points out that caring about and acting against are different. "Not giving a rip about sex slaves is not an option for the Christian. Not doing something directly to combat this evil is an option" (49). Again, my response is that YES that is true, but I still carry a burden of resentment for the section of the church that acts like other things are always actionable (like children's programs, another Bible study, another training program) but things like social justice are optional for those who might, but probably will never, have enough time. Still, "I can forget that my circle of influence will inevitably be smaller than my circle of concern" (51) is quite incisive and challenging to me personally, because I know that it is about time I figure out what my circle of influence is and take it seriously.
More further reading: What is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, mostly because I'm curious what these GC guys have to say about social justice and mission. (Have I heard them say anything about it? Mostly I just assume they think it's a non-issue because it's never mentioned, in my exposure.) Most of what I hear about social justice and mission comes from more liberal and/or contemplative voices because frankly, they're usually the ones talking about it.
"The impression we get from the Gospels is that almost every day for three years, [Jesus is] preaching, healing, and casting out demons. Don't think Jesus is some kind of Zen master who does yoga and ponders the sound of one hand clapping. If Jesus were alive today, he'd get more e-mails than any of us...He was tempted in every way just as we are, yet was without sin (Heb. 4:15)...He was busy, but never in a way that made him frantic, anxious, irritable, proud, envious, or distracted by lesser things...Jesus knew the difference between urgent and important. He understood that all the good things he could do were not necessarily the things he ought to do" (54-55).
"Ultimately, Jesus was driven by the Spirit" (56).
Also, he was "deliberate with his priorities" (57).
Oh, to be both of those things!!! (And thank you, Kevin DeYoung, for acknowledging that the third person of the Trinity is Holy Spirit, not Holy Word!)
As an example of the finiteness of humans, he uses women's inability to do it all--an annoying example, if you ask me. In discussing the "choice" a woman has between being more present at home or at work, he points out two women (a Republican and a Democrat-yay) who chose to quit their jobs to spend more time at home. He calls it "a choice women seem more hardwired to make than men" (58). Can I give him the benefit of the doubt and think, maybe he is lauding the women he's seen lay down pride, while men cling to ambition with a death grip? He did say "seem" rather than "are," and we have to be grateful for that. But that defense is a hard sell for me, because it also esteems the way women are taught to be, particularly by the author's cohort of Christianity, devoted to the needs of others (so that, it would seem, men don't have to be). Obviously this is a trigger for me, because this passing thought would not seem to warrant such an over-sized reaction. But I want to SHOUT that we need to stop the lie that women are "hardwired" for this--more specifically, the lie that we have a firm grasp of what women are "hardwired" for at all. I'm not saying women and men aren't different, but I'm saying that the intricacies and implications of those differences are anything but obvious. I'm saying that what we think is "nature" is often "nurture"--that we don't understand that interplay as much as we think. I think it's far more accurate to say that women are taught, by our culture and especially by the church, that we are supposed to make the choice to spend more time at home, that this is our role (and no one else's). It's very ironic to me that DeYoung uses this example, and then in the next chapter talks about our cultures over-obsession with parenting, and how parents get too busy with parenting because they think everything depends on them when it doesn't. Seems to me that this message is unevenly taught across genders.
Okay, now I'm tempted to go off the rails. The comment about, "Maybe Jane would be the most popular woman in her village in some other country. But, no matter the culture, there is something not quite right about Jane's decision making" (61). Thankfully, the author did acknowledge his USA-centric viewpoint in his writing. But why even include this comment about a village in some other country at all? The point could be made without throwing in that other nameless, but probably more provincial, area of the world, in which it is doubtlessly more difficult to discern the error in one's ways. Is that distracting to anyone but me? Okay, back to discerning what is helpful even if the narrator isn't perfect. (I remind myself that none is, least of all me if I could ever even write anything.)
"Parenting may be the last bastion of legalism. Not just in the church, but in our culture" (67). "It's harder to ruin our kids than we think and harder to stamp them for success than we'd like" (68). "I am responsible for my heart and must be responsible to teach my children the way of the Lord. But there's no sure fire input--say, the right mix of family devotions, Tolkien, and nutrition--that will infallibly produce the output we desire" (73) (ha!).
"If you keep burning the candle at both ends, sooner or later you will indulge in more and more mean cynicism--and the line between cynicism and doubt is a very thin one. Of course, different individuals require different numbers of hours of sleep; moreover, some cope with a bit of tiredness better than others. Nevertheless, f you are among those who become nasty, cynical, or even full of doubt when you are missing your sleep, you are morally obligated to try to get the sleep you need. We are whole complicated beings: our physical existence is tied up to our spiritual well-being, to our mental outlook, or our relationships with others, including our relationship with God. Sometimes the godliest thing you can do in the universe is get a good night's sleep--not pray all night, but sleep. I'm certainly not denying that there may be a place for praying all night; I'm merely insisting that in the normal course of things, spiritual discipline obligates you to get the sleep your body needs"--DA Carson quoted on p. 97 (holding in a tangent about this.....NEVERTHELESS...)
"I don't want you to think that hard work is the problem, or that suffering is necessarily the problem. If you have creativity, ambition, and love, you will be busy. We are supposed to disciple the nations. We are supposed to work with our hands. We are supposed to love God with our minds. We are supposed to have babies and take care of them. It's not a sin to be busy" (102). There is a difference, it seems, between busy and "crazy busy." "The antidote to busyness of soul is not sloth or indifference. The antidote is rest, rhythm, death to pride, acceptance of our finitude, and trust in the providence of God. The busyness that's bad is not the busyness of work, but the busyness that works hard at the wrong things" (like people pleasing, controlling others, etc) (102).
"One of the reasons we struggle so mightily with busyness is because we do not expect to struggle. Many Western Christians--and I'm chief among them--can easily live with the tacit assumption that we should not suffer....[Maybe we expect "big," momentous sufferings like cancer or job loss]...but day in and day out we don't expect to suffer. And the less we expect to suffer, the more devastating suffering becomes" (103).
Quoting Ajith Fernando: "To serve is to suffer....you will suffer if you are committed to people" (104).
"The one thing you must do"--be devoted=having a daily devotion??
"If you are sick and tired of feeling so dreadfully busy and are looking for a one-point plan to help restore order to your life, this is the best advice I know: devote yourself to the Word of God and prayer. This means public worship and private worship" (113).
"The pursuit of personal devotions is one of the strongholds of legalism. Anytime we talk about what we should do every day, we must make clear what Christ has already done for us. We can rest, because he worked" (114). "...the answer here is not simple willpower: 'I must spend more time with Jesus!' That won't last. We have to believe that hearing from God is our good portion. We have to believe that the most significant opportunity before us every day is the opportunity to sit at the feet of Jesus" (115).
Overall, a worthwhile read. I appreciated that DeYoung called out some unhealthy habits and harmful heart patterns about being frantically busy, but didn't turn it into a "just slow down" lecture. He esteemed hard work, and being devoted to service at personal cost. "If you have creativity, ambition, and love, you will be busy"=my favorite quote, I think. I also love the point that we should expect suffering. Seems that whether we do the stoic, stiff-upper-lip thing, or lament and feel all our feelings, we always seem surprised when suffering comes. Especially that daily kind. I love the encouragement that it is a normal part of doing life right in this broken world.
That is why I'm pushing through and reading Crazy Busy. Others have said it is good, and I love the premise, but the first BIG hurdle was the the unlikeability of DeYoung's voice. I don't actually know that much about DeYoung, what he has said or failed to say, what he stands for or what controversies might surround him personally. In my mind he is part of the blob that is the Gospel Coalition, which I appreciate for many of its teachings, but also find saddening due to the lack of teaching, and apparent willful ignorance, of other things I find very important. In my mind, he's another smart white guy that others look to for teaching, and really he just keeps teaching because everyone is listening, and they keep listening because they're taught that that's what they should do. (I call it like I see it.) Anyway, this book's dedication only reinforced these ideas. I don't even know all the guys he was referencing by their first names, but I'm imagining I recognize at least Matt Chandler and Mark Dever, and probably definitely CJ Mahaney (cringe). Furthermore, his humble-bragging (that denied being humble bragging, which only made it that much more conspicuous) at the beginning only drove a larger wedge between him as a writer and me as a reader. The fact that he admitted doesn't practice the things he's going to write about (because he's too busy) made me question why in the world I should listen to him. It was clear that the people are just demanding his opinions on things, so he had to write a book on it.
But, onward and forward, because the author can be a flawed and even unlikeable vessel and still have true and helpful insights on a topic.
And good insights I found, indeed.
In seeking to unroot sin issues and bad habits, in addition asking myself what Biblical commands I am disobeying, it is helpful to ask: "What self-imposed commands am I obeying that I should ignore?" (31).
"We get worked up and crazy busy in all the wrong ways because we are more concerned about looking good than with doing good" (41).
He points out that there are many "lazy" people out there who "need to get radical for Jesus" (44), but that many people are already have too much on their plate, and they need to learn that they can't take action on every worthy cause. They need to realize their limits. "Is it possible that God is not asking me to do anything about sex trafficking right now?" (47). I mean, honestly, I get annoyed about this coming from him, because my perception is that DeYoung's whole camp is so busy writing books and reading each other's books, and getting their theology right, and tweeting about gender roles, etc, that nobody seems to have time to make important issues like sex trafficking an actionable issue. But point taken. We can't all do it all. And honestly, perhaps my the pain of my annoyance comes from the plank in my own eye, because my MO is to be busy reading about all the issues and never act on any of them.
Future reading: Beyond Mission: A Passion for Christ, a Heart for Mission about how life is more than issues and tragedies and work, it is about the hope and joy of Christ. Will look into it.
He quotes John Piper: "We should care about all suffering, especially eternal suffering" (49) but points out that caring about and acting against are different. "Not giving a rip about sex slaves is not an option for the Christian. Not doing something directly to combat this evil is an option" (49). Again, my response is that YES that is true, but I still carry a burden of resentment for the section of the church that acts like other things are always actionable (like children's programs, another Bible study, another training program) but things like social justice are optional for those who might, but probably will never, have enough time. Still, "I can forget that my circle of influence will inevitably be smaller than my circle of concern" (51) is quite incisive and challenging to me personally, because I know that it is about time I figure out what my circle of influence is and take it seriously.
More further reading: What is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, mostly because I'm curious what these GC guys have to say about social justice and mission. (Have I heard them say anything about it? Mostly I just assume they think it's a non-issue because it's never mentioned, in my exposure.) Most of what I hear about social justice and mission comes from more liberal and/or contemplative voices because frankly, they're usually the ones talking about it.
"The impression we get from the Gospels is that almost every day for three years, [Jesus is] preaching, healing, and casting out demons. Don't think Jesus is some kind of Zen master who does yoga and ponders the sound of one hand clapping. If Jesus were alive today, he'd get more e-mails than any of us...He was tempted in every way just as we are, yet was without sin (Heb. 4:15)...He was busy, but never in a way that made him frantic, anxious, irritable, proud, envious, or distracted by lesser things...Jesus knew the difference between urgent and important. He understood that all the good things he could do were not necessarily the things he ought to do" (54-55).
"Ultimately, Jesus was driven by the Spirit" (56).
Also, he was "deliberate with his priorities" (57).
Oh, to be both of those things!!! (And thank you, Kevin DeYoung, for acknowledging that the third person of the Trinity is Holy Spirit, not Holy Word!)
As an example of the finiteness of humans, he uses women's inability to do it all--an annoying example, if you ask me. In discussing the "choice" a woman has between being more present at home or at work, he points out two women (a Republican and a Democrat-yay) who chose to quit their jobs to spend more time at home. He calls it "a choice women seem more hardwired to make than men" (58). Can I give him the benefit of the doubt and think, maybe he is lauding the women he's seen lay down pride, while men cling to ambition with a death grip? He did say "seem" rather than "are," and we have to be grateful for that. But that defense is a hard sell for me, because it also esteems the way women are taught to be, particularly by the author's cohort of Christianity, devoted to the needs of others (so that, it would seem, men don't have to be). Obviously this is a trigger for me, because this passing thought would not seem to warrant such an over-sized reaction. But I want to SHOUT that we need to stop the lie that women are "hardwired" for this--more specifically, the lie that we have a firm grasp of what women are "hardwired" for at all. I'm not saying women and men aren't different, but I'm saying that the intricacies and implications of those differences are anything but obvious. I'm saying that what we think is "nature" is often "nurture"--that we don't understand that interplay as much as we think. I think it's far more accurate to say that women are taught, by our culture and especially by the church, that we are supposed to make the choice to spend more time at home, that this is our role (and no one else's). It's very ironic to me that DeYoung uses this example, and then in the next chapter talks about our cultures over-obsession with parenting, and how parents get too busy with parenting because they think everything depends on them when it doesn't. Seems to me that this message is unevenly taught across genders.
Okay, now I'm tempted to go off the rails. The comment about, "Maybe Jane would be the most popular woman in her village in some other country. But, no matter the culture, there is something not quite right about Jane's decision making" (61). Thankfully, the author did acknowledge his USA-centric viewpoint in his writing. But why even include this comment about a village in some other country at all? The point could be made without throwing in that other nameless, but probably more provincial, area of the world, in which it is doubtlessly more difficult to discern the error in one's ways. Is that distracting to anyone but me? Okay, back to discerning what is helpful even if the narrator isn't perfect. (I remind myself that none is, least of all me if I could ever even write anything.)
"Parenting may be the last bastion of legalism. Not just in the church, but in our culture" (67). "It's harder to ruin our kids than we think and harder to stamp them for success than we'd like" (68). "I am responsible for my heart and must be responsible to teach my children the way of the Lord. But there's no sure fire input--say, the right mix of family devotions, Tolkien, and nutrition--that will infallibly produce the output we desire" (73) (ha!).
"If you keep burning the candle at both ends, sooner or later you will indulge in more and more mean cynicism--and the line between cynicism and doubt is a very thin one. Of course, different individuals require different numbers of hours of sleep; moreover, some cope with a bit of tiredness better than others. Nevertheless, f you are among those who become nasty, cynical, or even full of doubt when you are missing your sleep, you are morally obligated to try to get the sleep you need. We are whole complicated beings: our physical existence is tied up to our spiritual well-being, to our mental outlook, or our relationships with others, including our relationship with God. Sometimes the godliest thing you can do in the universe is get a good night's sleep--not pray all night, but sleep. I'm certainly not denying that there may be a place for praying all night; I'm merely insisting that in the normal course of things, spiritual discipline obligates you to get the sleep your body needs"--DA Carson quoted on p. 97 (holding in a tangent about this.....NEVERTHELESS...)
"I don't want you to think that hard work is the problem, or that suffering is necessarily the problem. If you have creativity, ambition, and love, you will be busy. We are supposed to disciple the nations. We are supposed to work with our hands. We are supposed to love God with our minds. We are supposed to have babies and take care of them. It's not a sin to be busy" (102). There is a difference, it seems, between busy and "crazy busy." "The antidote to busyness of soul is not sloth or indifference. The antidote is rest, rhythm, death to pride, acceptance of our finitude, and trust in the providence of God. The busyness that's bad is not the busyness of work, but the busyness that works hard at the wrong things" (like people pleasing, controlling others, etc) (102).
"One of the reasons we struggle so mightily with busyness is because we do not expect to struggle. Many Western Christians--and I'm chief among them--can easily live with the tacit assumption that we should not suffer....[Maybe we expect "big," momentous sufferings like cancer or job loss]...but day in and day out we don't expect to suffer. And the less we expect to suffer, the more devastating suffering becomes" (103).
Quoting Ajith Fernando: "To serve is to suffer....you will suffer if you are committed to people" (104).
"The one thing you must do"--be devoted=having a daily devotion??
"If you are sick and tired of feeling so dreadfully busy and are looking for a one-point plan to help restore order to your life, this is the best advice I know: devote yourself to the Word of God and prayer. This means public worship and private worship" (113).
"The pursuit of personal devotions is one of the strongholds of legalism. Anytime we talk about what we should do every day, we must make clear what Christ has already done for us. We can rest, because he worked" (114). "...the answer here is not simple willpower: 'I must spend more time with Jesus!' That won't last. We have to believe that hearing from God is our good portion. We have to believe that the most significant opportunity before us every day is the opportunity to sit at the feet of Jesus" (115).
Overall, a worthwhile read. I appreciated that DeYoung called out some unhealthy habits and harmful heart patterns about being frantically busy, but didn't turn it into a "just slow down" lecture. He esteemed hard work, and being devoted to service at personal cost. "If you have creativity, ambition, and love, you will be busy"=my favorite quote, I think. I also love the point that we should expect suffering. Seems that whether we do the stoic, stiff-upper-lip thing, or lament and feel all our feelings, we always seem surprised when suffering comes. Especially that daily kind. I love the encouragement that it is a normal part of doing life right in this broken world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)