Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Writers


by 14 Comments

Book Review: Chris Haw’s From Willow Creek to Sacred Heart

Chris Haw, From Willow Creek to Sacred Heart: Rekindling My Love for Catholicism (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2012). (Amazon.com)

9781594712920revisedI entered Christianity as a young man through a Pentecostal sect. When I departed from this group in my early twenties I began to self-identify with non-denominational evangelicalism. It seemed to me that the opposite of the sect from which I departed was the broad ecumenism of evangelicalism. Though I haven’t been sure of how to define “orthodoxy” over the years, I chose this route because I wanted to work toward orthodoxy. This is why my initial interest in the “emerging church” waned quickly. While I thought that the emerging church had the opportunity to be ecumenical in a new way, I wasn’t convinced that orthodoxy mattered as much as novelty, and I am not confident enough in my own wisdom to spearhead novelty. So non-denominational evangelicalism has been the path on which I have journeyed as a Christian, aiming to be united to the whole body of Christ while showing fidelity to those key confessions that give meaning to the word “Christian”.

You may think that I am about to announce that I have found this to be bankrupt, so I am converting to Roman Catholicism. You’re wrong if so. In fact, currently, I am part of a Mennonite congregation (though I don’t know that I would call myself a “Mennonite”), which is classified under the “radical Reformation”. I am not part of this assembly because it is radical, but I have found likemindedness with them as this local expression seeks to understand what it means to live in the way of Jesus in our world. I don’t deny that there are aspects of “low church” Christianity that trouble me (though our Mennonite assembly is somewhat liturgical and it follows the broader ecclesial calendar), but I find that I am able to live my Christianity in this context, at this stage of my life, more vibrantly than if I were to go elsewhere.

I do confess flirting with Roman Catholicism. I have friends who jokingly call me “catholic-lite”. I visit Mass around Advent every year now. I won’t deny that a Christmas Eve Mass is far more apt at expressing the sacredness of the hour than most evangelical traditions with which I am acquainted (I hate to say the word “Protestant”, because I think this binary is misleading, and this is the twenty-first century–apologies to Calvin, Luther, et al.), so the Advent season is one where I find myself drawn to the ancient rituals. On the other hand, to be fair, my Pentecostal upbringing has lead me to desire being around raucous celebration on Easter Sunday. I want a choir with a lot of noise celebrating the risen Christ. You may call me ecumenical, catholic, and confused.

Now that I have written the longest personal introduction to a book review let me tell you why I read Chris Haw’s From Willow Creek to Sacred Heart. First, my years in Portland, Oregon, caused great angst for me as relates to evangelicalism. I studied theologians like Athanasius of Alexanderia, Basil the Great, John of Damascus, and Maximus the Confessor in seminary. I realized these men were “catholic”, and that there thoughts had established “orthodoxy” as I have received it in many ways (there are exceptions, like, for example, John of Damascus’ defense of icons, which doesn’t work in the evangelical tradition). Also, it became evident to me that the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, and other central teachings of Christianity were decided by councils. What was I going to do with this? If councils (other than the one in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 17) are a means through which God has revealed truth to the world, what do I do with councils like the one at Chalcedon?

Even my bibliology was challenged as I continued to read critical scholarship it became evident that the biblical canon didn’t fall from heaven intact, but into the early years some books like the Peterine Epistles and the Apocalypse were books that not all Christians accepted as valid. I had known this as some level, but now I was facing it straightforwardly, and I was forcing myself to ask what this means for my religious worldview. What was I going to do with what many evangelicals argue is the “inerrant Word of God” when I realized that it is true, in some sense, that the church chose the canon over the years, and that in different parts of the church the canon isn’t the same, as one can see when examining the Coptic canon over against the Roman Catholic canon, or the Roman Catholic canon over against the canon used by most evangelicals.

Finally, the Bible is a book that is open to many interpretations. I have been reading Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies and I realize that even the Valentinians could use Scripture. Evangelicals like to talk about how obvious orthodoxy is when you use the “right” hermeneutical approach, but this hasn’t proven true for me. I find that while I have interpretations of the Bible, I can see how Lutherans arrive at their views, and how Methodists arrive at their views, and how Pentecostals arrive at their views. In other words, while I think some people may be wrong here or wrong there I don’t think that their interpretation is impossible, at least not like the Valentinians!

Evangelical practice concerned me as much as that of Roman Catholics. Evangelicals take a very hard stand against the inclusion of the LGBTQ community because of a handful of passages while at the same time celebrating people who return from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of far more biblical mandates in the New Testament against violence, hating an enemy, returning evil for evil, so forth and so on. I know a professor of biblical literature who finds no wiggle room for divorce, at all, yet he is the first person to solute a veteran. Similarly, these same interpreters will take a few passages from the Pauline Epistles to eliminate the possibility that there can be women who pastor, who serve as elders, or who preach even. If we are honest most of these evangelicals want some of Roman Catholic ecclesiology without the Pope.

Message of the Book

When I saw the title of Haw’s book I knew he would discuss his journey from evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism. Willow Creek is a mega church outside Chicago, IL. Sacred Heart is his parish in Camden, NJ. The author co-wrote a book with Shane Claiborne titled Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals several years ago. This sounds more like something that would be written by someone from the Mennonite tradition, like John Howard Yoder, not someone who would become part of the Roman Catholic Church lead by someone like the Pope who lives in a place like Vatican City. So I contacted Ave Maria Press to ask for a copy for review and I received one. I wanted to read about Haw’s “conversion”. I wanted a dialogue partner who saw the same problems I see with evangelicalism, yet who can respect evangelicalism enough to be courteous. This was a perfect book for that.

Summary of the Contents

The book has a forward from the aforementioned Shane Claiborne. Interestingly, for a book written by a Roman Catholic talking about how he left evangelicalism, this book receives high marks from people like Brian McLaren (who has a generous orthodoxy to most Christians, save Roman Catholics and Pentecostals!), Phyllis Tickle, and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove. This book is respected by Roman Catholics and those associated with the emerging church. That is quite a feat!

This book is divided into two parts: Part One: Action (with Some Contemplation) and Part Two: Contemplation (with Some Action). In Chapter One: From Mass to Megachurch Haw discusses his family’s association with Roman Catholicism and how during his adolescence the programs at Willow Creek were far more attractive that the dead ritual of his former church. He talks about how youth workers at Willow Creek were there for him during a very difficult time. The worship at Willow Creek wasn’t as “religious”, per se, as what he has experienced. Anyone who has been a youth among evangelicals or groups like evangelicals (e.g., some Pentecostals) will enjoy reading about Haw’s experiences.

In Chapter Two: From Class to Streets is an account of how Haw’s passion for social justice and radical Christianity came alive as a student at Eastern University. It was here that he began to work with the poor and marginalized. He began to be attracted to new monasticism and communal living. He finds himself in opposition to America’s warmongering post-9/11. Haw’s Christianity is shifting from being a consumer at Willow Creek to an actor at Eastern University.

In Chapter Three: From Streets to the Jungle Haw documents his time in Belize where he was introduced to the impact of humans on the environment. He interacts with the writings of Wendell Berry and other eco-theologians. In this chapter he reveals how he came to see Creation as a good thing and how he realized that Christian discipleship demands that we care for Creation.

In Chapter Four: From Jungle to War documents Haws involvement with the anti-war movement. He discusses his disillusion with how blood-thirsty American Christians became after 9/11 and how this madness causes him to continue to question what it means to be a disciple, this time as it relates to violence.

In Chapter Five: From War to Concrete Jungle discusses Haw’s transition from being a student to living in impoverished and violent Camden, NJ. This is where he began to organize his own new monastic community. In doing this he began to visit a couple of places of worship, one being Sacred Heart, a local Roman Catholic perish.

Part Two begins Haw’s “theological” section. When I say theological I say this not to say Haw desires to write something like a systematic theology, but rather for those familiar with the theologizing of G.K. Chesterton, this is what you should expect. In some sense, I read Haw as Chesterton redivivus. He has the ability to present Catholic theology in such a way that it makes me stop and think deeply. As I alluded above it should be obvious that Haw didn’t convert me (this isn’t his aim anyways), but I do have a greater appreciation for the Roman Catholic tradition and it has forced me to rethink my own Christianity.

Chapter Six: Murder and the Mass is a challenging reflection on the Mass (obviously). Haw has some very good things to say about how Mass reminds us of how we are violent. He talks about Mass not as satisfying the angry deity God the Father, but rather we are the angry deity. We needed to kill God. Haw addresses the evangelical criticism of the celebrating a crucified God who has risen from the dead by showing how reminding ourselves that we are violent people is a great act of subversiveness.

Chapter Seven: Pagan Christianity flows naturally from the last chapter. Haw addresses criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church as concerns the similarities between Catholic liturgy, practice, and structure to dead (or dying) pagan religions and whether this syncretism is something evil or if it shows how Christianity knows how to adopt the best practices of people as those people adopt the Gospel.

Chapter Eight: The Search for No Accent is a devastating critique of the mythology of some denominations, or new denominations, that schism will result in a purer, more “apostolic” church leaving behind the baggage that has attached to Christianity over the years. This was one of the wittiest, most straightforward chapters, and as I will state below, I go a different direction that Haw, but I do agree with his criticisms of denominationalism.

Chapter Nine: On Being Part of a Terrible Organization is a very honest exploration as to what it means to be Catholic in light of the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church, the sexual abuse scandals, the refusal to ordain women as priests, and other aspects of Catholicism that concern outsiders. I feel like Haw does a fine job of expressing why he has chosen to remain part while knowing the whole is far from perfect. This chapter asks us to find an institution that is perfect. Of course, we know no such organization exists.

Chapter Ten: Art and Apocalypse addresses the grandeur of the Vatican, cathedrals, and the ceremonies of Catholicism as this relates to whether all of this should be sold and given to the poor. Haw answers this negatively, explaining the value of the church’s willingness to love and hate the world, to beautify the world while trying to care for the poor (noting that the Roman Catholic Church is the most charitable organization in the world), and how apocalyptic imagery reminds us of our need to beauty, art, architecture while at the same respecting its temporality.

Concluding Thoughts

I wish I could write more and more about this book. Let me say, no, I am not a Roman Catholic after reading it, but, reading it during Advent tempted me toward conversion a few times! While Haw has come to embrace the imperfections of what it means to be a Roman Catholic, this book has allowed me to embrace the imperfections of evangelicalism. I continue to think through how my evangelicalism jives with creeds and councils, but at this juncture I am not convinced that the past completely defines the present or future of Christianity as regards these matters. Haw sees the divisions within Protestantism as reason to embrace the unity provided by Rome. I see the divisions much like I see the “states” of the United States: sure, there are differences and boarders, but we function under one King, and that King is the one through whom we find our ultimate unity in the Holy Spirit. For those of us who are not Catholics we must remember that prior to lambasting Catholicism we must take the time to know what Catholics believe and why. Authors like Chesterton and Haw have given me great respect for the Catholic tradition. I would say even that there are aspects of Catholic theology that make better sense of the world and better sense of Christianity that the views espoused by my fellow evangelicals, but this isn’t enough for me to abandon evangelicalism. Rather, I revisit my evangelicalism and ask myself if there are better ways to think as an evangelical. For that I thank Haw because he has written an immensely valuable book.

About these ads


by 24 Comments

Neutrality masking biases

coverI have been reading Chris Haw‘s new book From Willow Creek to Sacred Heart: Rekindling My Love for Catholicism, which I received to review courtesy of Ave Maria Press. I must say that it is an excellent book. Haw documents his transition from evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism, and even if you are not considering this path, this book is worth reading because Haw does such a fine job of exegeting the culture that many of us younger Christians in North America have been trying to understand (especially those who are in their late 20s or early 30s and who, like me, seek to reconcile the positive aspects of the evangelical world within which we dwell to the historic practices of the catholic church). When I am done with the book I will write a review on this blog.

I asked Ave Maria Press for a copy of this book because as I sat in a Barnes & Noble Bookstore a couple weeks ago the book caught my attention, so I decided to skim through it, but obviously couldn’t finish it in one brief setting. Chapter Eight: The Search for No Accent is the one that I chose to read because as a Roman Catholic he discusses the problems with denominationalism, and how many denominations pretend to be the group without traditions that happen to return to the purity of the apostolic church. Since I, as an evangelical, worry about this and what it has done to the church, her unity, and our self-perception, I went to that part of the book first (currently as I read it for review I am back in the third chapter). There is quote from this chapter that I felt like sharing, because it is poignant, and accurate.

Haw challenges what he calls “the cult of neutrality”, or that aspect of our culture where we think of our own particular brand (or accent of speech as he uses for analogy) is universal, when in fact it has a context as well. He challenges the idea that we can do anything without presuppositions, a worldview, and biases, and that we are in danger of hurting ourselves and others when we pretend that we are “neutral”. This is when he launches into a series of wonderfully accurate observations that I wanted to share here because (1) I am guilty of them and (2) I see them used all the time by people I know. Haw writes (p. 130),

“Another way to illustrate how a seeming neutrality can mask a whole set of biases is by noting what passes for an insult these day. We call someone ‘dogmatic’ when we wish to imply that they are too rigid, when it is perhaps closer to the truth that their dogmas collide with ours. We consider being called ‘opinionated’ an insult; but we don’t use this word because someone happens to have an opinion–but because they have the wrong one or are pushy about it. We call being ‘ideological’ a sin, not because having ideas is a sin, but because we think our ideas are better than others’. We accuse politicians of getting ‘political’ when what we actually mean is sectarian–not they had fallen into the heresy of having political thought. I also hear of people speaking of ‘propaganda’ as if it were a bad thing, and I wait for the punch line, and it never comes. If I don’t like propaganda, it is because it is propagating an idea I don’t like, not merely because it attempts to propagate. (The word ‘agenda’, too, is often used like this.) Or, we hear of a group being denounced as ‘a cult,’ when it might have been more precise to call it a bad cult, for isn’t collective worship of anything a ‘cult?’ When we scoff at the manipulation of children by youth pastors in movies like Jesus Camp, calling it ‘indoctrination,’ it might have been clearer to say that children ought to be taught better doctrines. All of these instances abuse language with a linguistic sleight-of-hand, distracting the mind by saying a disagreeable idea has a bias, whereas the magician remains unbiased.”

Now I understand what people mean when they use these terms. Sometimes we don’t have time to unpack why we think someones’ “indoctrination” is wrong, or the attitude of their opinion is distasteful, or dogma needs to be reconsidered. We use this as a short, quick way to say, “I disagree, but I have other things to do.” Sometimes this is fine. I know of groups that I find to be the “bad cult” types whose members I won’t engage because I’ve “been there, done that” and I know there are other things to do with one’s time. There are people who hold to certain ideologies that protect them from having to consider any other ideas, so we dismiss them because conversation/dialogue has proven fruitless. I understand this and I agree, but Haw is correct–if we don’t watch our language we can find ourselves thinking higher of ourselves than we ought. We might ignore our own biases, pretending to be neutral, blinded by the sad reality that we are like those whom we have labeled as “dogmatic,” “opinionated,” “idealogical,” and so forth.


by 6 Comments

Book Review: Lois Tverberg’s Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus

Tverberg, Lois. Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus: How the Jewish Words of Jesus Can Change Your Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012). (Amazon.com)

9780310284208Lois Tverberg is the author of a recent book titled Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus. She sent me a copy to review (for which I’d like to thank her) since this blog discusses topics related to Second Temple Judaism, Jesus, and early Christianity. It is more of a “user friendly” book than is reviewed here usually, but it is one that I think many of this blog’s readers may find valuable. 

Message of the Book

The aim of this book is quite simple: study the culture within which Jesus lived and his words and deeds will be given a new, enlightening nuance. I enjoy reading literature on this topic from a variety of people, whether it be N.T. Wright, E.P. Sanders, Amy-Jill Levine, Craig A. Evans, or a host of other authors who are experts on the historian’s Jesus. I know authors like Rob Bell, Ray Vander Laan, and to a different extent Kenneth E. Bailey have tried to include the discussion of scholars into their more popular literature (or like Wright, writing his own popular versions), but it is not common. Tverberg on the other hand as written one book already titled Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus and this is her second effort to help the “person in the pew” think about Jesus as a first-century Jew (though by no means does she remove the confessional/creedal affirmation about Jesus).

I admit that sometimes I am skeptical of these types of works. In an effort to talk about the historian’s Jesus there is the danger of anachronism, especially when it comes to the use of rabbinic sources, but even scholars can make the mistake of interpreting the historian’s Jesus through later works, so I read this book with a graceful eye knowing that the historian’s Jesus is a difficult character to grasp, especially when you come from a confessional background of one sort or another, and even when you do not come to the study having thought of Jesus in terms like “the second person of the Trinity”.

I should qualify that though this book does aim to revive the Jewishness of Jesus for the reader it is not strictly a work of history. Rather, it does engage in the reception history of rabbinic and Christian traditions, it is devotional, and it does include stories and examples that give contemporary meaning to living as a Christian in our modern world. Personally, I think it is a very useful book for something like a small group study at your local church with people who may never have the opportunity to read much about the historical studies surrounding Jesus of Nazareth.

Summary of the Content

The title of this book is based on a saying from Mishnah, Avot 1:4. Yose ben Yoeser is a second rabbinical figure of the second century BCE who is quoted here as having said that a disciple should “powder yourself with the dust of their feet”, “their” being that of one’s teacher.[1] The idea is that one should sit at the feet of their teacher or follow their teacher so closely that the dust that kick off his feet cover them. If this saying is nearly as old as it is attributed then Jesus’ disciples may have heard something like it and it may have had it in mind as they followed Jesus. This is the picture of discipleship Tverberg aims to present.

The book divides into three sections: I. Hearing Our Rabbi’s Words with New Ears; II. Living Out the Words of Rabbi Jesus; and III. Studying the Word with Rabbi Jesus.

In section I there are four chapters. Chapter 1: Brushing Away the Dust of the Ages is introductory. Tverberg talks a bit about how Gentile Christians have thought of Jesus as a Savior, as have Jewish Christians, but there was a sense among Jewish Christians that Jesus was their “rabbi” or “teacher” as well, something lost on many Gentile Christians.[2] This may be true, in part, when one examines contemporary Christianity, but I don’t know that the Patristic writings would deny the necessity of following the example of Jesus, even if not described in Jewish terminology like halakhah. It is a contemporary evangelical audience to whom Tverberg writes though and what she says about following Jesus’ example is true of many.

Tverberg does Christians a great service by making known to a popular audience some of the ideas circulating since E.P. Sanders’ Jesus and Palestinian Judaism forced scholars to rethink their language about first century Jews as legalistic and superstitious people who Jesus had to enlighten. Rather, Jesus was very much a Jew of his day engaged in the discussions being debated at that time. In many ways Jesus was unique in his teaching, but there is a lot of what Jesus said and did that is far from original with his person. I think this is good for lay audiences to know.

Tverberg presents her sources in this chapter: the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Josephus, and the Gospels. She clarifies that she doesn’t mean to limit Jesus to the status of a mere rabbi. Instead, she wants to highlight that part of his reality as a teacher who called disciples. She wants to remind Christians that our religion was once called “the Way” or “the Path” based on the Hebraic concept of following a derekh and that Jesus talk his disciples how to “walk” in his way, or halakah.[3]

The remainder of section I examines Jesus’ teaching that the most important commandments in the Law are to (1) love the Lord your God with all your heart…. And (2) the one like it, love your neighbor as yourself (see Mt. 12:28-31). Tverberg admits that she was surprised as a younger Christian to find that Jesus’ words came from the heart of the Law, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, “two books I had read the least.”[4]

In Chapter 2: Shema: Living Out What You Hear she begins to delve into the Jewish Shema beginning with this word meaning something like “to hear with the intent to obey”. She ties this into Jesus’ words, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” Then she discusses the meaning of the word echad, often translated “one” (which has caused much debate between Jews and Christians over doctrines like the incarnation and Trinty), but she advocates the use of “alone” as in this God was Israel’s God “alone”. This frames it as a command to fidelity more than a mere creedal statement for monotheism.

In Chapter 3: Loving God with Everything You’ve Got Tverberg continues to explore the Shema asking how God could command “love”. She argues that “love” is not a mere emotion here, but a covenantal agreement of sorts, like the word hesed, which is discussed in this chapter as well. When this chapter ends the reader will have gone through a fairly extensive word study on the Shema with an aim for understanding how this may have impacted Jesus and his teachings and how it should impact our contemporary discipleship.

In Chapter 4: Meeting Myself Next Door Tverberg moves to the second commandment about loving one’s neighbor. She provides a helpful discussion on how important this teaching was for the early church. Then she moves to studying Leviticus 19:18 and its context which is a reminder that Israel was once slaves in a foreign land, therefore treat foreign guests with kindness. This introduces the debate in Jesus’ day over the meaning of “neighbor”, provides a context for Jesus’ story about the Samaritan, and asks how all of this fits into Jesus’ words in his prayer for God to forgive us and we forgive others.

Section II begins with Chapter 5: Gaining a Good Eye which examines Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:22-23 about the eye being filled with darkness or light. She argues that this saying is idiomatic meaning that having a “good eye” means to look out for others, especially the poor while having a “bad eye” means being selfish.[5] The remainder of the chapter examines Jesus’ teachings on charity and giving.

Chapter 6: The Mystery of the Name attempts to unpack the meaning of a “name” in the ancient world, e.g. when disciples baptized or did exorcisms “in the name of Jesus”. Tverberg introduces readers to the idiomatic expression’s relevance for presenting the authority of another. She discusses the lexical meaning of Jesus’ name, what coming in someone’s name meant, the idiom “in the name of a prophet…”, the “hallowing” of the name of God in the Lord’s Prayer, and what it means to profane a name (e.g., taking the “name” of the Lord in vain).

Chapter 7: How to Have a Kosher Mouth begins with a discussion on the role of the tongue on books like Proverbs and James and then delves into the ethics of speech: avoiding an evil tongue, slander, shaming others, and a variety of topics that include showing other dignity and not abusing them with one’s speech.

Chapter 8: Taking My Thumb Off the Scale includes a very relevant discussion on Jesus’ words about judging, especially when contrasted with Paul’s decision to tell the Corinthians to toss a member from their assembly. What does Jesus mean by “judgment” and how does our modern language around “judging others” skew our reading of the text? Tverberg guides the reader into thinking about this from a Jewish perspective, asking how anger and insults play into Jesus’ words as well as the picture of a scale being used at the local marketplace.

Chapter 9: Praying with Chutzpah argues that Jesus depicts God as appreciating someone with chutzpah or “utter nerve, sheer audacity that borders on obnoxiousness.”[6] She examines the story of the Syrophoenician woman (Mt. 15:21-28; Ml 7:25-30); Jesus’ parable about the unrighteous judge in Luke 18:2-5; the parable about the man who has unexpected guest from out of town in Luke 11:5-8; and Jesus’ words about “good gifts” in Matthew 7:9-11. She grounds this Jewish appreciation for chutzpah in Abraham, the father of the Jews (see Gen 18:23-25), and Moses (see Ex. 5:22-23). The chapter ends with some words on prayer, especially prayer for others.

Tverberg ends section II with Chapter 10: Thinking with Both Hands examines the Jewish tradition of shakla v’tarya, or “give and take”, where one person—like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof examining the tradition of a “match maker”—wrestles with a dilemma arguing internally for both sides. This approach to reality is found everywhere within Scripture—sometimes seen through western eyes as contradictions. One could think of Paul’s words on justification juxtaposed with James’ words on justification. Also, Jesus’ paradoxical words about “first” being “last” and “last” being “first” or losing life gains it and gaining life loses it. What would be contradictions to some are balanced views of the world in Scripture.

Tverberg transitions to a discussion on how some Laws—though all seen as having a divine origin—are seen as weightier than others. In this chapter she does a fine job of snuffing the tradition that Jews were panicky legalist seeking to avoid hell to gain heaven. She writes, “Contrary to our traditional Christian assumption, their discussions about the Law do not arise out of an anxious striving to earn one’s way to heaven. Jewish thought generally assumed that Jews were already saved, because God graciously chose Israel as his people. In their minds, the Law teaches them how to live in a way that pleases a loving God and upholds their covenantal relationship.”[7]

This invitation to “weigh laws” explains Jesus’ debates with the Pharisees over things like Sabbath far better than the old “legalism v. grace” paradigm. I think this may be one of the most valuable chapters for Christians who are used to this sort of approach to the Judaism of Jesus’ day. As much as scholarship has seen a paradigm shift it has taken a while for these ideas to “trickle down” to the church. Tverberg’s book as a more popular work can help bridge the gap.

The final section focuses the last four chapters on reading Scripture. Chapter 11: The Treasure of the Text reminds Christian readers that the Old Testament matters and that it is “floating” right below the surface of the text of the New Testament. Tverberg writes, “As Christians, we long to think the thoughts of Christ. But the stories he knew, the songs he sang, and the prophecies that shaped his earthly mission lie in the Old Testament.”[8]

The familiarity with Scripture reflected in the New Testament is attributed to the importance of reading Torah in the synagogue and the command for Jews to meditate and know the words of Scripture. Tverberg discusses parasha and haftarah readings (almost liturgical) and how this dedication to reading the text changed people.

Chapter 12: The Secret That God Keeps argues that the Jewish tradition has been aware that one can study Scripture their entire life and never know it all, or capture it, or find all the answers. This isn’t the goal of reading. Tverberg discusses God’s secrets in Daniel 12:8-9 and how this shapes the words of Acts 1:6-7 and Mark 13:32. The chapter includes sections on Messiah (Jesus) as interpreter of Torah, the ignorance of Job’s friends, and caution when studying eschatology.

Chapter 13: Our Longing Father challenges Marcionite thinking that denies (whether implicitly or explicitly) that the God of Israel in the Old Testament is the Father of Jesus in the New Testament. Tverberg emphasizes the God shown to us by Jesus as being a God of emotion and feeling, not an unmoved mover, but a real “personal” deity as seen in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. She examines a variety of Old Testament texts that speak of God in the same way, as loving, gracious, patient, caring. She presents the God of Jesus as being one who is not indifferent, or an “unmoved mover”, but a God who loves, actively.

Chapter 14: God’s Image Stamped in Dust is the final chapter of the book. It is a study of the imago Dei concept from Genesis 1:26-27 and how that fits into Jewish thinking and the teachings of Jesus.

At the end of each chapter there are a series of discussion questions under the titled “Wisdom for the Walk”. The book has a forward by Ray Vander Laan and an afterword from Ann Spangler. The book uses endnotes, at the end of the book, not the chapter. Finally, there is a glossary of terms and recommended resources for further reading that include respected authors such as Kenneth E. Bailey, Craig A. Evans, Abraham Heschel, and Brad Young as well as various online resources.

Concluding Thoughts

This book would be a great resource for small group leaders or the Sunday school class of a local church. I think Lois Tverberg has a lot of helpful points to make that evangelicals ought to hear and she puts it in the type of readable format that allows her to gain an audience. It is an enjoyable read. It is applicable. It is pastoral. It is informative. I learned from it and I imagine others will as well.

[1] 201, n. 24

[2] 21

[3] 27-29

[4] 33

[5] 70

[6] 118

[7] 137

[8] 146


by Leave a comment

Rachel Held Evans’ A Year of Biblical Womanhood is available.

I’ve seen people mention that they have seen Rachel Held Evans A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master at a variety of bookstores already, but today is the official release date, so if you’ve been waiting you don’t have to wait any longer (e.g, Amazon.com).

Remember, I wrote a review a couple weeks ago. You can read that here.

Let me share how I summarized the book:

I enjoyed this book. I recommend you read it. I presume that people who are sympathetic to Rachel’s views on this or that are more likely to read it than those who oppose her. That is fine. But I do hope some who find themselves skeptical will take the risk of reading this book. I think you will find it isn’t what you suspected (or what book reviewers for some coalition who claim to have a monopoly on the “Gospel” might say about it). This book exalts Christ, it honors the work of the Spirit, it respects Scripture, it challenges the church, and it serves as a prophetic voice in a world where women who are beloved by God wait for an advocate.

I stand by this. It was an excellent book, enjoyable to read, and very thought provoking.


by 8 Comments

Book Review: Rachel Held Evans’ A Year of Biblical Womanhood

Held Evans, Rachel, A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012). (Amazon.com)

I received an Advanced Reader’s Copy of Rachel Held Evans‘ A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master a couple of weeks ago. Quickly, I began reading it. I respect all that Rachel has done as a popular blogger and her willingness to be a voice for women and other people who are ignored and/or mistreated within broader Christianity. I had a hunch that this would be an enjoyable book to read and she did not fail me. It was excellent.

On Twitter I described it using these four words: fun, adventurous, challenging, and prophetic.

Aim of the Book:

If you are unaware of the aim of this book it is an effort to spend one calendar year trying to live according to various mandates in Scripture aimed at women. Some people find this blasphemous. I find it fits within the heart of the Christian tradition. Immediately as I began to read the book the words attributed to the apostle Peter in the Book of Acts 15.10 (NASB) came to mind: “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” Christianity has not disrespected Scripture by acknowledging that strict, literalistic approaches are overwhelming and impossible. Rather, Christianity has honored Scripture by acknowledging its perplexing, exhausting, weighty nature. Christianity has said that the mandates of Scripture direct us toward Christ, because we cannot bear the yoke of rules and regulations.

This book (like A.J. Jacob’s A Year of Living Biblically) aims to make this very point with a smile.

Over the course of the year Rachel works on developing gentleness, domesticity, obedience, valor, beauty, modesty, purity, fertility (kind of), submission, charity, silence, and grace. I think the most wonderful aspect of this book is that while it exposes our pick-and-choose hermeneutic (and the blind selectivity of groups like the so-called Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) Rachel does an amazing job of (1) bringing forth the positive principles found behind the problematic passages of Scripture and (2) honoring women (and people in general) who have decided to live strictly in accordance with a more literalistic reading of various passages.

While reading this book I learned about Jewish women, Amish women, Roman Catholic monks, a community of Quakers, and so forth. I learned about the positive side of their stories. The healthy disciplines they develop. The attractive aspects of their spirituality that might benefit us all. I know that some will dismiss this book as a radical feminist slandering of all things that progressives deem archaic and out-of-touch. If this is your presupposition, you’ll miss reading a great book. Rachel is very respectful. She realizes something my wife tells me often: there is no greater way to ruin women’s solidarity and support of one another than to turn them against each other for choosing to live their lives differently.

Some Reflections:

This book invites the reader on a wild roller coaster where Rachel tries to cook like Martha Stewart, honor her husband at the “gate” of her city, dress according to the strictest standards of modesty one can find in Scripture, and on and on. This book had me smiling and laughing on numerous occasions.

It made me upset as well. Rachel has done her homework and she shares with her readers the worldview of some writers–men and women–who advocate “biblical womanhood” as a woman staying home, having a half dozen children, never going to college, never having a career, and living for her husband as a servant. While there may be women who find this to be fulfilling there are other women who have a sense that this is not the aim of their life. These authors attempt to guilt women into a model of womanhood that has nothing to do with ancient Israel or first century Galilee as much as it does everything to do with 1950′s America. Rachel exposes this and she does it without being hostile. I must commend her on this because while I was reading excerpts from this or that author my face would turn red with anger. I cussed to myself on many occasions. What Rachel has done through this experiment is out do the legalist in their legalism!

Rachel’s book does not mock Scripture; her book exposes our inconsistencies as readers of Scripture, our false objectivity (a mythological epistemology that needs to die), and our foundationless and often hypocritical piety. Rachel proves to be a better and more honest reader of Scripture than many people whom I have met with doctorates in biblical studies. She lets Scripture bother her. She lets it challenge her. I found her honesty about Scripture to be refreshing and she has become a fellow pilgrim in my own journey to understand this complex, concerning, beautiful book known as the Bible.

In this book Rachel puts flesh on the “redemptive hermeneutic” of Scripture (e.g., see W.J. Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis). In other words, she displays quite well how the Gospel provides a foundation for the flourishing of women even if there are passages in the Bible that seem to be oppressive. She reminds us of the respect Jesus showed women. She wrestles with the cultural contexts of some of Paul’s words regarding women while drawing our attention back to his cornerstone claim that “in Christ” there is “neither male nor female.” This book takes the Bible seriously, even if Rachel doesn’t read the Bible like some people think she should read the Bible. (For what it is worth, my approach to Scripture is far more like Rachel’s than it is conservative evangelicalism’s.)

The Main Point:

The best part of this book was Rachel’s (here comes a big word) “Christocentrism,” which is encapsulated in what I consider to be the “money quote” of the book:

“As a Christian, my highest calling is to follow Christ. And following Christ is something a woman can do whether she is married or single, rich or poor, sick or healthy, childless or Michelle Duggar, mom on nineteen (p. 181).”

This is the main point: Christ calls women to be his disciples in this world. He leads them by his Spirit as he does men. This means some women may be stay at home mothers, and others may be CEOs. Some women may have a dozen children, and some may dedicate a life of singleness to Christ. Some women may organize the nursery on Sunday, and others may be preaching the sermons from pulpits. If I can put it this way, Rachel’s book reminds me of the words of the apostle Paul (Romans 14.4): “Who are you to judge another man’s servant?” If God calls woman to do something with which you are not comfortable her responsibility is to God.

Other Perks:

Throughout the book the reader is introduced to Rachel’s husband Dan through journal entries he wrote during the course of the book’s development. Let me tell you something: Dan challenged me to be a better husband to my wife far more than any literature from Focus on the Family or Desiring God could ever do. Dan is the ultimate team player. He supports Rachel. I gain from the book that he makes Rachel a better person and she makes him a better person. One can critique egalitarian marriages, but the fruit of the Spirit seems to be blossoming in the midst of their relationship, so do what you will with that. As I read his thoughts he made me ask myself if I am doing all that I can do to help Miranda become all that God has made her and whether I have supported my wife in her giftedness. Someday I’d like to meet Dan, give him a big handshake, and thank him for existing.

At the end of chapters Rachel provides short profiles on women from biblical narratives like Deborah, Rachel, Mary, Tabath, Junia, and more. As with the Gospel of Matthew’s genealogy one realizes that God has done some of his greatest work quietly through humble women over history right under the nose of radically patriarchal cultures! Yes, Scripture focuses on males far more than females, but the quirk of this is that it is in the silent, humble side of Scripture that we find the story moving forward to its destination.

The most challenging and prophetic part of the book is the vision she casts for women. This book does not spend all of its time arguing over women pastoring (it assumes the legitimacy of this acts, as do I), nor does it give tons of attention to all the quirky injustices we find in the church regarding women (as important as these are), but rather Rachel opens the reader’s eyes toward the global problems facing women: human trafficking, prostitution, abuse, abandonment, and so much more. She appeals to our calling as Christians to care for our sisters locally and globally. In her chapter on ‘Justice’ she reminds readers that feminism is not the stereotypes you hear on talk radio, but “the radical notion than women are people too.” Women are not property. Women are not ontologically inferior to men. Women are equals to be valued, respected, honored, admired, and supported.

Humanity could not exist without women (and this is applicable to more than giving birth). Women are essential to the mission of the church. Women are essential to the health of humanity. If we don’t invest in women we harm our present and our future.

Conclusion:

I enjoyed this book. I recommend you read it. I presume that people who are sympathetic to Rachel’s views on this or that are more likely to read it than those who oppose her. That is fine. But I do hope some who find themselves skeptical will take the risk of reading this book. I think you will find it isn’t what you suspected (or what book reviewers for some coalition who claim to have a monopoly on the “Gospel” might say about it). This book exalts Christ, it honors the work of the Spirit, it respects Scripture, it challenges the church, and it serves as a prophetic voice in a world where women who are beloved by God wait for an advocate.


by 21 Comments

Rachel Held Evans on the the word “biblical” and its misuse

It’s biblical!

I received my advanced reader’s copy of Rachel Held Evans’ A Year of Biblical Womanhood in the mail yesterday. I began reading it this morning and I have an excerpt to share (from p. xvi):

“Now, we evangelicals have a nasty habit of throwing the word biblical around like it’s Martin Luther’s middle name. We especially like to stick it in front of other loaded words, like economics, sexuality, politics, and  marriage to create the impression that God has definitive opinions about such things, opinions that just so happen to correspond with our own. Despite insistent claims that we don’t ‘pick and choose’ what parts of the Bible we take seriously, using the word biblical prescriptively like this almost always evokes selectivity.”

Last night I had a conversation with a family who comes from a tradition that tells women that they cannot wear pants, jewelry, makeup, and so forth and so on because they have a proof text that supports their views. I tried to emphasize that the Bible is not a rule book full of universal principles for the “good life,” but a narrative of the people of God that must be interpreted, examined, discusses, and read cautiously. Other traditions may not have these strict rules, but they have their favorite texts, those that reinforce their worldview. They may not dislike their wife’s make up (in fact, it may cause them a lot of aesthetic pleasure), but they don’t want their wife to have an authoritative voice in the world. As I said, this isn’t about the Bible. It is about our wants and desires, our need for power and control, and the Bible happens to be a useful weapon to conquer others, so we use it.

Biblical can be an exciting word, but often it is a dangerous, abusive word meant to baptize our preset ideology.


by 40 Comments

Is it 2011? The Gospel Coalition and Rob Bell have our attention, again.

Rob Bell is back with a new video titled “Rediscovering Wonder” that sounds a lot like a response to his detractors if you “listen between the lines.” Watch and tell me your thoughts (HT: American Jesus):

Also, we can’t mention Rob Bell without The Gospel Coalition (TGC) gaining our attention. Jared C. Wilson approvingly shared (see The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc) an excerpt from a book by Douglas Wilson (Fidelity: What It Means to be a One-Woman Man) that describes the role of males in sexual activity as follows: “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants.” What do women do according to Wilson? “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” Interestingly he frames this as the good that rape culture and bondage games “pollute.” You can read the vulgarity yourself, though I do recommend caution.

Of course, as you can imagine, this has outraged quite a few. It could come across as quite insensitive to, oh I don’t know,  sexual abuse victims maybe? Doug Wilson responded by accusing everyone of not knowing how to read and Jared Wilson wrote a follow-up post (see Shades of Outrage) that is the equivalent to telling an impolite joke at a party and then responding to everyone’s outrage with, “What? What’s wrong? C’mon people, loosen up. Hey, where you going? No one can take a joke!” (see Dianna Anderson’s critique)

I don’t lose sleep that groups like The Gospel Coalition exist. I am sad that they are trying so hard to monopolize the word “Gospel.” Don’t they know misogyny is available? It is far more fitting.

Plenty of good, smart folks have responded already (I think the excerpt speaks for itself and I think anyone who thinks it is OK reveals their true colors…no need to argue with them): Joel Watts asks that these people unmask their ideas about sex and call  it what it is: rape. Daniel Kirk agrees calling “sexual conquering” rape. Rodney Thomas exposes the sexism and racism of this post. Rachel Held Evans gives a thorough response. Scot McKnight asks TGC to do the right thing by calling them to take the offensive post down.

Needless to say, it is 2011 again.