Book Review: Strength to Love

Strength to Love by Martin Luther King, Jr. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963. 192 pp)

Born in 1929, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a pastor, activist, and leader of the African-American Civil Rights Movement. King rose to prominence during the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott and orchestrated the 1963 March on Washington where King gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. King earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. He was assassinated in 1968.

A Big Deal 

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a big deal. I recall learning about his life and his influence on civil rights early and often in grade school. I heard his famous “I Have a Dream” speech long before I knew what it meant. King County—where I live—originally named after William Rufus King is now named after MLK.

Yet for all I’ve learned about King over the course of my education, I knew little about the origins of King’s thought. Aside from a passing mention of King as a Baptist minister, the facts I was taught regarding King sit mostly on the secular side.

Photo by Scott Ableman 

Thus, I found King’s theological inspiration fascinating. When I read his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” for a college course, my life changed. I found an ethic by which to live. I had no clue that King spent so much time in the public eye grounded by his theological inspiration.

A Collection 

For this reason, I found King’s Strength to Love incredibly fascinating.

A compilation of 15 separate sermons, Strength to Love follows a variety of topics. Loving neighbors and enemies represent a major theme. Contextual issues such as a Christian’s response to Communism also populate the pages.

If you have heard MLK’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech, you’ve heard his unparalleled eloquence. King’s possesses stolid and erudite prose. As such, you could underline every other sentence.

The Continual Journey 

But for me, the most fascinating sermon concludes this book. Titled “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence”, the chapter unveils the MLK’s theological journey.

In his words,

“In my senior year in theological seminary, I engaged in the exciting reading of various theological theories. Having been raised in a rather strict fundamentalist tradition, I was occasionally shocked when my intellectual journey carried me through new and sometimes complex doctrinal lands, but the pilgrimage was always stimulating, gave me a new appreciation for objective appraisal and critical analysis, and knocked me out of my dogmatic slumber” (146).

Having experienced theological study, such sentiments ring true with me. Reading King’s words about his time in preparatory study reminds me of the journey we all take in faith, in philosophy, and in life. Without King’s intellectual journey, we more than likely would not have seen such a powerful external representation of his beliefs.

The Foundations of Faith 

Likewise, King’s honesty about his faith inspires me.

“God has been profoundly real to me in recent years. In the midst of outer dangers I have felt an inner calm. In the midst of lonely days and dreary nights I have heard an inner voice saying, ‘Lo, I will be with you’” (153).

Photo by Nathan Gibbs

In statements such as these, I find profound awe. This man—arguably the most important figure in the 20th century—relied heavily on his faith. Underneath his intellectual journey and his public leadership in the civil rights movement was a foundation in Christian faith.

In Appreciation of the Man 

Of course, Martin Luther King’s influence reaches far beyond Christian circles. As a philosophical system, King’s views on nonviolence are revolutionary. MLK openly announces the influence of Gandhi on his positions—a position clearly outside of orthodox Christianity but nonetheless an influence on King’s beliefs.

But, reading King talk about faith in Jesus and the importance of the church in tender words all while admitting his intellectual journey gives me courage.

If you are a fan of Martin Luther King or are interested in hearing his positions from his voice, Strength to Love is a mandatory read.

Verdict: 5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Powell's Indie Bound Amazon

Book Review: A Generous Orthodoxy

A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional + Evangelical + Post/Protestant + Liberal/Conservative + Mystical/Poetic + Biblical + Charismatic/Contemplative + Fundamentalist/Calvinist + Anabaptist/Anglican + Methodist + Catholic + Green + Incarnational + Depressed-Yet-Hopeful + Emergent + Unfinished Christian by Brian McLaren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
352 pp)

Brian McLaren, born in 1956, graduated from the University of Maryland with B.A. and M.A. degrees. He taught English before serving as the founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church. Apart from his church duties, McLaren is known for his contributions to the emerging church movement. Time has named McLaren as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals. He is married to Grace McLaren and they have four adult children.

A Seminary Kind of Life 

Having spent some time in seminary, I value the diversity and consanguinity of tradition in the members of such a guild. In an academy where questions strike at the core of belief and careful, considered answers provide food for lively debate, it is impossible to reject opposing theological positions a priori.

While I’ve personally heard many Christians reject theological positions as heretical, connecting those positions to the flesh and blood of a person forces a change in perspective. Christians of differing traditions the world over love Jesus, love the church, and seek to make the world a better place.

Defining Orthodoxy 

Photo by Omar Chatriwala

Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy is a Christian manifesto seeking to answer why we are negative about opposing viewpoints. Based in the evangelical tradition, McLaren has been immersed in an absolutist theological system. For many in this tradition—and I admit I’ve known my fair share—orthodoxy does not mean adhering to Christianity as a whole but observing a specific system within Christianity.

“For most people, orthodoxy means right thinking or right opinions, or in other words, ‘what we think,’ as opposed to ‘what they think.’ In contrast, orthodoxy in this book may mean something more like ‘what God knows, some of which we believe a little, some of which they believe a little, and about which we all have a whole lot to learn’” (32).

Haven’t we all heard someone accuse specific traditions of claiming to be Christian while being a heretic in reality?

In this book, McLaren seeks to reinvent the idea of orthodoxy transforming it to a more inclusive position.

“The approach you’ll find here, which might be called postcritical, seeks to find a way to embrace the good in many traditions and historic streams of Christian faith, and to integrate them, yielding a new, generous, emergent approach that is greater than the sum of its parts” (22).

The Threat of Relativism 

For many Christians, this previous quote unsettles. If a Christian affirms every tradition, doesn’t such a position result in relativism, especially when considering the many disagreements and tensions between traditions? A Calvinist’s belief in predestination cannot exist simultaneously with an Arminian’s view of free will. Even though many critics continue to accuse McLaren of relativism, he suggests his generous approach has nothing to do with either relativism or absolutism.

“A generous orthodoxy of the kind explored in this book, while never pitching its tent in the valley of relativism, nevertheless seeks to see members of other religions and nonreligions not as enemies but as beloved neighbors, and whenever possible, as dialogue partners and even collaborators” (39).

McLaren offers generosity as a position where people ought to talk without suffering from vitriolic debate about the absolutes of the world. Does this mean absolutes don’t exist? No! Let’s return to McLaren’s first quote in the review. The world is a place where “what God knows, some of which we believe a little, some of which they believe a little, and about which we all have a whole lot to learn.” Truth exists; we are all searching for it together.

Losing the Value of Tradition 

Photo by Sean Molin

However, A Generous Orthodoxy never pursues pluralism, where all traditions are equally valid. In this way, McLaren’s theology cherry-picks the best parts of each viewpoint. While intriguing to consider, this mentality rejects the wealth of exclusivist tradition and belief around Christian the world over. Even if McLaren seeks to unite Christians with this book, promoting what he thinks is positive about each theological approach could leave a sour taste with people devoted wholly to a certain position.

Yet, this critique might be McLaren’s point. No tradition has unlocked the absolute answers to Christian faith. Each position contains some good and some bad and has a lot to learn.

For any Christian tradition to claim all the answers is not only to reject the wealth of Christian experience outside of that tradition as false but also to assume finality on the subject. Even if it seems like McLaren only spends time in certain aspects of each position, a communal pursuit of truth not found in any tradition is his overarching point.

“To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall. It is rather to be in a loving (ethical) community of people who are seeking the truth (doctrine) on the road of mission (witness, as McClendon said) and who have been launched on the quest by Jesus, who, with us, guides us still… That, to me, is orthodoxy—a way of seeing and seeking, a way of living, a way of thinking and loving and learning that helps what we believe become more true over time, more resonant with the infinite glory that is God” (333-334).

Sanctification = A Generous Orthodoxy? 

Photo by Kevin Cole

In the end, McLaren’s quest for a generous orthodoxy resembles the Methodist view of sanctification. Once a Christian is justified by faith, life is a series of steps toward perfection where the more we learn, the more Christian we become, the closer we are to heaven.

McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy intrigues me. As a person always looking for middle ground, McLaren’s emerging theology affirms the good in every Christian tradition. When we affirm absolutes on one side of the spectrum or the other, we are prone to the absurd conclusions found when one tries to apply black and white principles in a gray world.

Moreover, I like the idea of sanctification—that Christians worldwide continue to struggle with truth and the meaning of life, together working toward a better understanding of Christianity within the context of life on earth. Life is a series of learning events. If ever we think we know all the answers, aren’t we akin to the child who lies when she says she’s never told a lie?

A Generous Orthodoxy provides a valuable reminder about human frailty. Too often, Christians think they have all the answers. But if we had all the answers, would we even need Jesus in the first place? A Generous Orthodoxy reminds me both to continue searching for truth and to reassess my theological assumptions. There is always room for growth.

The sooner we can realize the wealth and joy of Christian tradition worldwide, the sooner we’ll grow theologically.

If you are interested in a generous view of Orthodoxy and willing to consider the flaws in your own view of orthodoxy, A Generous Orthodoxy is for you.

Verdict: 4 out of 5

What about you? Does McLaren’s position bother you? Do you think that there’s one way to orthodoxy or are we still trying to figure it out? Is McLaren a relativist? What does orthodoxy mean to you?
Share your thoughts below.

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Powell's Indie Bound Amazon

Book Review: The Law of Love and the Law of Violence

The Law of Love and the Law of Violence by Leo Tolstoy; translated by Mary Koutouzov Tolstoy (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2010; originally published in 1948. 128 pp)

Leo Tolstoy is a late nineteenth century Russian novelist known best for War and Peace and Anna Karenina. In his youth, Tolstoy studied law at Kazan University. Tolstoy gained massive wealth from his fictional writing, and as a result, developed into a social reformer and Christian anarchist in his later years. Tolstoy died in 1910.

Letter from Birmingham Jail 

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” represents the most influential document from my undergraduate years. Read in conjunction with an ethics class, King’s words resonated in ways I had previously never felt. Penning the words behind iron bars, King urged his disciples to stand against injustice through non-violent resistance. He claimed people ought to speak against immoral laws and perhaps even break those laws in order to illustrate injustice. But, he argued, people must break those laws nonviolently, and must also accept the consequences of the laws they’ve broken. To fight evil with evil is to lose the principles you fight for.

King’s principles of nonviolent resistance trace back to the famed Mahatma Gandhi. Even though Gandhi receives justified attention for his philosophies of non-violent civil disobedience, his views trace back to the writing of Leo Tolstoy. Similar to tracing modern guitar players to the nimble fingers of blues musician Lead Belly, I am intrigued to trace the roots of an idea to its source.

Christian Anarchy: Love Instead of Violence 

With The Law of Love and the Law of Violence, Tolstoy promotes a society where love replaces violence. To be clear, Tolstoy views violence as an all-encompassing word. Violence certainly means bloodshed, but it also refers to any source of conflict occurring by force. Tolstoy observes a world specialized in violence:

“The mistake of all political doctrines, from the most conservative to the most advanced, which has brought men to their present lamentable condition, is the same: to keep men in society by the aid of violence so as to make them accept the present social organization and the rule of conduct that it imposes” (18).

For Tolstoy, no part of society escapes the rot of selfishness. Whether the Church, the marketplace, or government, society seeks violence to approve the way of life.

The law of violence has governed society for centuries, according to Tolstoy. Historically, humanity never ventures far from yet another war. Interestingly, Tolstoy points to the printing press as the foundation for a potentially pivotal change in society. He writes,

“In proportion as education has spread, as printing has replaced writing, the Scriptures have become more accessible. Men cannot help but perceive the striking contradiction between the order of existing things upheld by the Church, and the evangelistic doctrine that it acknowledges as being holy. Read and understood as it is, the Scriptures appear to be a frank and explicit denial of both the State and the Church” (26).

Finding accessibility to the written Word, the individual congregant uncovers alternative doctrines to the established Church. With the rise of Protestantism comes competing claims to the truth of Scripture. Because the Church no longer carries the exclusive right to biblical interpretation, the theological foundations for absolute love found in Scripture become known to the masses.

By properly understanding Scripture, Christians can challenge the status quo. Where violence surrounded Christian doctrine in the institution of the Church, the Gospel urges Christians to reconsider.

“The Christian doctrine, the real significance of which we are grasping more and more, teaches that man’s mission is to manifest ever better and better the Rule of all; and it is love that proves the presence of this Rule in us” (32).

Love: The Basis for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience 

Tolstoy purports if love becomes the singular governing rule, the relationship with society must fundamentally change. No longer can we operate businesses under mendacious principles; no longer can we seek warfare as a mode of justice; no longer can we seek change in light of injustice by replacing violence with violence.

Therefore, a Christian guided by love seeks to right injustice through non-violent means. Recognizing the consequences of non-violent disobedience, a Christian will gladly accept the injustice of jail time for the sake of exposing violence in the system.

Does such an example work? It is hard to say. Jesus willingly accepted the injustice of the Cross and the gospel found completion in the resurrection. The work of Martin Luther King resonates deeply in the American psyche. Yet, many Christians adhere to the long-standing tradition of just war theory. As for me, I align with King, Gandhi, and Tolstoy. Fight violence with love and courageously accept the consequences. If you are interested in non-violent disobedience as an ethical stance, I suggest reading The Law of Love and the Law of Violence.

Verdict: 4.5 out of 5

Where do you stand? Is violence ever admissible? Is the law of love too extreme? Do you agree with Tolstoy’s biblical interpretation?
Share your thoughts below.

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:
Powell's Indie Bound Amazon

Book Review: The Orthodox Way

The Orthodox Way: Revised Edition by Bishop Kallistos Ware (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995. 164 pp)

Kallistos Ware is an English bishop within the Greek Orthodox Church. Born Timothy, Ware went to Westminster School in London and later to Magdalen College, Oxford. In 1966, Ware was ordained to the Greek Orthodox priesthood and received the name, “Kallistos.” Ware lectured on Orthodox Studies for 35 years at the University of Oxford, retiring in 2001. Ware’s most popular publications are The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way, both intended for lay people.

Burn the Heretics 

Whenever my grandfather discusses Greece, he mentions his singular experience in the Greek Isles. Visiting an Orthodox Church with my grandmother, an Orthodox priest graciously administered a tour of the premises. The dialogue advanced swimmingly between the parties until the priest asked if my grandparents were Orthodox. When my grandfather admitted his Protestant roots, the priest kindly-yet-forcefully requested that my grandparents leave the church. To this day, my comprehension of the Orthodox tradition remains tainted by my grandparents’ experience.

Given my assumptions, I appreciate Bishop Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Way, which functions as a primer on Eastern Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy and the Western Church: They’re Different! 

While Ware explores the basic tenets of Orthodoxy in this book, I will focus on the contrasts between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity.

The first distinct difference surrounds the representation of God. Whereas Western Christianity remains wary of images, fearing the worship of idols, Orthodoxy distinctly focuses on symbolism.

“Recognizing that God is incomparably greater than anything we can say or think about him, we find it necessary to refer to him not just through direct statements but through pictures and images. Our theology is to a large extent symbolic. Yet symbols alone are insufficient to convey the transcendence and the 'otherness' of God” (14).

Photo by Marcel Germain

Recognizing the ethereal mystery of God, Orthodoxy questions the assumption that humanity can reason itself to an understanding of God. By utilizing symbols and images, the Orthodox understanding of God transcends language.

Second, Orthodoxy considers sin in different terms. Where Western traditions focus on compunction through a juridical lens, Orthodoxy views sin through a therapeutic lens.

“For the Orthodox tradition, then, Adam’s original sin affects the human race in its entirety, and it has consequences both on the physical and the moral level: it results not only in sickness and physical death, but in moral weakness and paralysis” (62).

While Western traditions steer toward sin as guilt in need of just punishment, Orthodoxy tends to consider sin in medical terms—a disease in need of a cure.

Lastly, Orthodoxy carries a high view of the Holy Spirit. Although Western traditions pay lip service to this third member of the Trinity, in practical terms, the Holy Spirit functions as a secondary member, a process proceeding from God the Father and God the Son. Not so, in Orthodoxy.

“First, the Spirit is a person… Secondly, the Spirit, as the third member of the Holy Trinity, is coequal and coeternal with the other two; he is not merely a function dependent upon them or an intermediary that they employ” (91-92).

Three Cheers for Ecumenism

A way to lead life, The Orthodox Way considers the basic tenets of Orthodox tradition. While the core principles between Western and Orthodox tradition resemble each other, Orthodoxy varies to a slight degree. But, the overarching goals remain the same. Ware writes,

“The spiritual Way is not only ecclesial and sacramental; it is also evangelical” (109).

Such sentiments can be preached in sanctuaries across the Western world. Of course, my ecumenical leanings need not be reciprocated. As my grandparents’ illustration clearly implies, Orthodoxy remains wary of the West. However, I appreciate learning about the Orthodox tradition. In many ways, Ware’s explanation of Orthodoxy aligns closely with core Western theological principles surrounding the deity of Christ, the divine nature of the Trinity, and the necessity of prayer. Even though Eastern and Western traditions vary significantly in specific theological insights, the general positions offer much to be praised.

The Orthodox Way shifts my understanding from broad stereotypes to in-depth specifics. If you possess a curiosity about the Orthodox Church, Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Way acts as a sterling introduction.

Verdict: 4.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

The Orthodox Way

Indie Bound
Amazon

Book Review: Acres of Diamonds

Acres of Diamonds: All Good Things Are Possible, Right Where You Are, and Now! By Russell H. Conwell and Robert Shackleton (Lexington: Feather Trail Press, 2009; originally published in 1915. 92 pp)

Born in Massachusetts, Russell Conwell attended Yale University and Albany Law School. Conwell founded Temple University and pastored The Baptist Temple in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

An Inspiring Story 

For some reason, the simplicity of the standard “success story” conjures the hopeful sentiment that such accomplishments could occur in any life. Truthfully, most successful stories begin with an idea, a notion of which all human beings are equally capable. In Acres of Diamonds, Russell Conwell utilizes positive and negative narratives in order to inspire productivity in his community.

In Defense of Wealth 

Simply speaking, Conwell is pro wealth. While many theologians and ethicists warn society about the dangers of increasing riches, Conwell believes that Christians possess an ethical duty to be rich. He writes:

“Money is power, and you ought to be reasonably ambitious to have it. You ought because you can do more good with it than you could without it. Money printed your Bible, money builds your churches, money sends your missionaries, and money pays your preachers, and you would not have many of them, either, if you did not pay them… The man who gets the largest salary can do the most good with the power that is furnished to him. Of course he can if his spirit be right to use it for what it is given to him” (13).

Viscerally, such statements seem disconnected with reality. Many people would love to make as much money as possible but do not possess the opportunities to do so. However, when charitably considered, Conwell’s philosophy seems sensible to a certain extent.

First, Conwell’s opinions resemble pro-business theological arguments. Many Christians affirm profit, arguing that it is an integral piece of the marketplace puzzle. However, profit ought not to be an end; profit ought to be made with the purpose of serving others. How is this position different than Conwell’s where he suggest that the rich can do more good in the world with money? It isn’t.

Russell Conwell

In many ways, Conwell’s theory resembles the first two bullet points in John Wesley’s economic theory: one, gain all you can; and two, save all you can. Once made rich by gaining and saving, a Christian is capable of doing good deeds in the world. This notion of good resembles Wesley’s “give-all-you-can” principles minus the all-you-can part.

The Problem of Systemic Injustice 

Nevertheless, Conwell’s position on wealth is untenable because it disregards the concept of systemic injustice. Certain people who possess the desire and talent to succeed in business will never find the opportunity. In Conwell’s mind, such poverty is attributed to a lack of belief or a lack of trying. Given our economic system, it is important to remember the role of profit and to do good things when in positions of power. But, Christians also ought to campaign against systemic injustice in order to provide opportunity for those with a will but without a way.

Acres of Diamonds inspires people to pursue wealth. I am not convinced this position is correct. Conwell’s writing carries the foundations of prosperity gospel, a worrisome theology which focuses on wealth creation as evidence of faithfulness. Acres of Diamonds is an influential work and therefore ought to be studied. However, if you are uninterested in the relationship between theology and economic theory, avoid this book.

Verdict: 2.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: A Theology for the Social Gospel

A Theology for the Social Gospel by Walter Rauschenbusch (Mansifeld Centre: Martino Publishing, 2011; originally published in 1918. 290 pp)

Walter Rauschenbusch was the leading proponent of the Social Gospel Movement whose mission was to reform society to meet the social needs of the poor through the ministrations of the institutional church. PBS recently called him “one of the most influential American religious leaders of the last 100 years.”

The Nature of Sin and Salvation 

When attempting to manufacture a systematic theology, the nature of sin and salvation becomes integral components of the position. Slight changes in these core beliefs cause vast differences externally. Having previously labored toward the notion of “the social gospel,” Walter Rauschenbusch writes A Theology for the Social Gospel with the aims to fill in the gaps.

Interestingly, Rauschenbusch begins his endeavor under clearly inductive principles. Where many theologians begin with wide-sweeping, theoretical principles and work down toward specifics, Rauschenbusch begins with the assumption that:

“We have a social gospel. We need a systematic theology large enough to match it and vital enough to back it” (1).

Thus, the bedrock principles of theology must fit around the idea of a social gospel.

On Sin 

Next, Rauschenbusch defines the nature of sin. Rauschenbusch rejects the classic conceptions of sin which center on the notion of personal morality. Instead, he offers,

“Sin is essentially selfishness. That definition is more in harmony with the social gospel than with any individualistic type of religion. The sinful mind, then, is the unsocial and anti-social mind” (50).

As the basic tenets of the social gospel recommend, the notion of sin must transform from an individual perception to a collective perception. Sin is not defined by the “do’s and don’ts” of individual morality but the involvement of an individual in a larger group. Rauschenbusch later suggests that sin takes effect in social scenarios; without the opportunity to inflict injustice on another human being, sin lacks an ethical bite.

Sin and the Collective Body 

Having established a social setting under which sin finds meaning, Rauschenbusch expands the meaning of sin to include social groups. For his justification of the moral value in collective organizations, Rauschenbusch quotes Josiah Royce who stated,

“There are in the human world two profoundly different grades, or levels, of mental beings,—namely, the beings that we usually call human individuals, and the being that we call communities.—Any highly organized community is as truly a human being as you and I are individually human” (71). 

The collective actions of a community carry as much weight as the actions of an individual. If a human being is capable of sinful selfishness, an organization is as well. 

On Salvation 

Given the notion of both human and communal sinfulness, Rauschenbusch’s view of salvation carries a similar dualistic nature. On one side, Rauschenbusch affirms an individual salvation when he asserts,

“If sin is selfishness, salvation must be a change which turns a man from self to God and humanity” (97).

Even though he adds the caveat of turning toward humanity, Rauschenbusch aligns himself for the most part with classic views on salvation.

Yet Rauschenbusch takes an extra step, asserting that communities also carry the responsibility of salvation. He writes,

“The Salvation of the composite personalities, like that of individuals, consists in coming under the law of Christ” (111).

In ways similar to the legal standing of corporations as individual citizens, Rauschenbusch believes that the collective actions of an organization are a source for salvific consideration.

On the Church 

For Rauschenbusch, the entity that ties together his theology of sin and salvation is the church. Rauschenbusch argues:

“The Church is the social factor in salvation. It brings social forces to bear on evil. It offers Christ not only many human bodies and minds to serve as ministers of his salvation, but its own composite personality, with a collective memory stored with great hymns and Bible stories and deeds of heroism, with trained aesthetic and moral feelings, and with a collective will set on righteousness” (119).

Therefore, the connection between personal and collective sin and salvation lies with the church. It possesses the ability to speak into the life of an individual and against the injustice of a collective.

Questions on Sin and Grace 

Even though A Theology for the Social Gospel explores the importance of adding collective moral weight to the notions of sin and salvation, certain assertions from Rauschenbusch are questionable. First, he decries the classic notion of universal sin. He writes,

“Theologians have erred, it seems to me, by fitting their definitions to the most highly developed forms of sin and then spreading them over germinal and semi-sinful actions and conditions” (45).

Most Christian traditions consider sin to be sin no matter the depth or consequence. A white lie is as sinful as committing murder. Yet, Rauschenbusch clearly believes that sin is too widely defined. Certainly, we see Christians who take liberty to declare many “gray areas” as sinful.

Despite no clear “thou shalt not drink alcohol of any kind at any time,” many moralists consider such an action as sin. However, the attempt to define a “semi-sinful” state seems dangerous. On the whole, Rauschenbusch argues against a legalistic morality, but I worry he wanders too far in the other direction.

In addition, I see no mention of grace in Rauschenbusch’s theology. There is no note on the Ephesians passage that states, “For by grace we have been saved…” (Ephesians 2:8). For Rauschenbusch, salvation occurs during alignment with God and alignment with the Church body. Given his inductive approach to the social gospel, Rauschenbusch has no need for grace. But isn’t grace the first step and those alignments a response to the original offer of grace? Clearly, Rauschenbusch does not stress a Pauline view in his social gospel. But I am wary that without mentioning grace, Rauschenbusch ignores a portion of the gospel.

Conclusion 

In A Theology for the Social Gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch sets forth an attempt for a systematic theology that fulfills the social gospel from an inductive approach. Focusing on sin and salvation that includes both personal and collective pieces, Rauschenbusch believes that the social institution of the church acts as the fulcrum between the individual and society. Nevertheless, Rauschenbusch’s view of sin and his lack of interest in grace leaves question marks. The gospel offers social aims, and Walter Rauschenbusch’s theology endeavors to provide system around it. If you are interested theology and social justice, Walter Rauschenbusch’s A Theology for the Social Gospel is a must read. However, if you find unorthodox or non-conservative theological positions dangerous, I suggest you steer clear.

Verdict: 3 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century

Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century: The Classic That Woke Up the Church by Walter Rauschenbusch; edited by Paul Raushenbush (New York: HarperOne, 2008. 400 pp)

Walter Rauschenbusch was the leading proponent of the Social Gospel Movement whose mission was to reform society to meet the social needs of the poor through the ministrations of the institutional church. PBS recently called him “one of the most influential American religious leaders of the last 100 years.”

Paul Raushenbush, great-grandson of Walter Rauschenbusch, was associate dean or religious life and the chapel at Princeton University and current religion editor at the Huffington Post. He has served as an associate minister at the Riverside Church in New York City and has been involved in ministry to street youth in Seattle and Sӑo Paulo, Brazil.

An Allegory of the 19th Century 

Walter Rauschenbusch begins the fifth chapter of Christianity and the Social Crisis with a poetic allegory of the 19th Century. Upon the end of that century, Rauschenbusch imagines the 19th century descending into “the vaulted chamber of the Past”, where previous centuries congregate to discuss the perils and pieties of their respective eras. With unprecedented material success accumulated in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, the 19th Century metaphorically pats its own back. Interjecting, the 1st Century enquires whether or not the 19th Century has solved the problem of hunger. Hearing this question, the 19th Century lowers its head realizing that another hundred years have passed without any progress on the core issues of human suffering.

By this metaphor, Rauschenbusch pursues the notion of a social gospel. Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century is an updated edition of Rauschenbusch’s original publication titled, Christianity and the Social Crisis which graced best-seller lists 100 years ago. Inventively, Walter’s grandson, Paul has included responses at the end of each chapter from influential theologians.

The Social Aspect of the Gospel 

In Christianity and the Social Crisis, Walter Rauschenbusch begins with a reappraisal of the gospel. Since Christianity had for centuries emphasized the personal salvation of human beings, Rauschenbusch reassesses this principle citing the gospels.

While he refuses to completely ignore the future salvific aims of Jesus, Rauschenbusch asserts that Jesus carried revolutionary social aims. He writes,

“Whoever uncouples the religious and the social life has not understood Jesus. Whoever sets any bounds for the reconstructive power of the religious life over the social relations and institutions of men, to that extent denies the faith of the Master” (42).

Historically speaking, the aims of Jesus were social in nature. When he spoke of the Kingdom of God, he did not mean a heavenly future exclusively; Jesus also situated the Kingdom of God in the present, an attainable society toward which disciples must work.

The Failure of the Church 

Given this position, Rauschenbusch decries the classic self-serving and individualistic tendencies of the Church. Instead of focusing on social justice, the church looked inward. Rauschenbusch warns,

“The Church was able to offer the most enticing eternal rewards to those who gave to her. Thus she discouraged the giving of aid from man to man and encouraged the concentration of giving on herself. To some extent this systematized charity, and an ever larger percentage of the gifts never reached the poor” (152).

In other words, by linking eternal rewards to service of the church and by lining the church coffers with money instead of giving alms to the poor, the Church neglects the social aims of Jesus and replaces them with a hollow theology of personal salvation and increasing monetary power. Clearly, Rauschenbusch possesses a low view of the Church institution.

The Social Crisis 

Walter Rauschenbusch

Without the church acting in accordance with the marginalized of society to pursue social reconstruction, the economic reality of the early 1900s is harsh, to put it nicely. With capitalists holding monopolies on private property, the majority of Americans carry the work of their hands as their only economic bargaining chip.

Throughout Christianity and the Social Crisis, Rauschenbusch illustrates many depressing scenarios for the economically powerless. Speaking in terms of which I am acutely aware, he notes,

“I can conceive of nothing so crushing to all proper pride as for a workingman to be out of work for weeks, offering his work and his body and soul at one place after the other, and to be told again and again that nobody has any use for such a man as he” (195).

Such words resonate in our current setting with many recent college graduates encountering the worst job market in decades.

The Church, the State, and the Social Utopia 

With these harsh realities in mind, Rauschenbusch believes that an alignment of the church with social reconstruction offers opportunities to unlock a social utopia. A man of pristine optimism, Rauschenbusch suggests,

“Theology must become Christocentric; political economy must become anthropocentric. Man is Christianized when he puts God before self; political economy will be Christianized when it put man before wealth. Socialistic political economy does that” (301).

This view, later defined in Christian-communistic terms, suggests that the Church acts as a partner with other social institutions. Together, all can work toward the social utopia where people do not suffer from want or need.

What about Communal Evil? 

Nevertheless, Rauschenbusch’s belief in the goodness of humanity blinds him to the possibility of communal badness. In a response to the final chapter of Christianity and the Social Crisis, Jim Wallis argues,

“It is fair to say that [Rauschenbusch] not only failed to anticipate any of [Communism’s sordid] history but also generally missed communism’s potential for collective evil. His almost utopian dreams for the future, at the height of the progressive era and at the beginning of the century, reveal a naïveté about human nature and sin that was characteristic of the time” (344).

Although many Evangelicals find Rauschenbusch’s Christology to teeter dangerously on the edge of heresy, I am not too concerned with Rauschenbusch’s views on the divine nature of Jesus. From a perspective at the dawn of a new century, the glaring mistake in Rauschenbusch’s ideology is his optimism. Given the opportunity to operate society from collective principles, the communist methodology to date has failed precisely because of humanity’s capability for collective evil.

The Crisis Continues 

Walter Rauschenbusch recognizes the failure of the 19th century. Even though many hailed the wealth accumulated in that century, Rauschenbusch knows that further work must be done to accomplish the social aims of the gospel. With beautiful prose and timeless arguments (for the most part), Rauschenbusch recognizes the importance of social aims in Christianity. Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century is a must read for all Christians and could even inform the opinions of those who do not hold Christian beliefs.

Verdict: 4.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Good News to the Poor

Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics by Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990. 236 pp)

The current Professor of Biblical and Constructive Theology at Chicago Theology Seminary, Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. earned his A.B. from Duke University in 1964 and both his B.D. and Ph.D. from Emory University in 1967 and 1971 respectively. Jennings has served as a local pastor and taught for three years at the Methodist Seminary in Mexico City. He has served as a consultant with the United Methodist Church on issues related to commitment to the poor. His research interests include Christian doctrine, biblical theology, gay studies, contemporary late modern philosophy and deconstruction.

The Relationship between Wealth and Piety

Similar to ancient Israel, a dominant thread in current Christian thought is the belief that poverty is a result of sin, a doctrine known as prosperity theology. Whether a person possesses low socio-economic status due to slothfulness or an addiction to some vice such as alcohol, drugs, or gambling, Christians assume that growth in piety equals growth in the bank account. Although John Wesley’s followers fall into this problematic assumption, Theodore Jennings argues that Wesley’s theology denies this faulty premise.

Exploring Jennings’ book, Good News to the Poor, I will argue that Wesley opposes the increase of riches, proposes a preferential option for the poor, and suggests solidarity with the poor through wise stewardship. Then, I will question Wesley’s premises by asking if it is necessary to increase capital in order to optimally steward property for those in need.

The Danger of Wealth

Theodore Jennings’ appraisal of John Wesley’s evangelical economics begins with the premise that Wesley acutely understands the danger of wealth for a sanctified Christian life. In contrast to many Christians who believe that wealth and power signifies divine favor, Wesley finds that wealth and power possesses a corrosive force for individuals, institutions, and sovereign nations. Jennings notes,

“In sermon after sermon, Wesley hammers home the theme that the increase in possessions leads naturally to the death of religion” (35).

Combating the natural propensity for people to sensationalize the need for increased riches, Wesley demystifies the pursuit and warns Methodists that such quests lead to perilous eternal consequences for the soul.

A Preferential Option for the Poor

Photo by Trey Ratcliff

The demystification of wealth, then, couples with a preferential option for the poor (Jennings uses this language although Wesley would not). If the pursuit of wealth carries dangerous eternal ramifications, it follows that a life lived in relationship with the poor aligns with Wesley’s evangelical economics. More than a theoretical principle, the preferential option for the poor is a tangible deed for Wesley. Jennings writes,

“Wesley was, if nothing else, the theologian of experience. This did not mean for him a concentration upon isolated moments of interior religious excitement, but rather the immersion in lived experience, in the texture and duration of sensory involvement. If you want to know what love is, you live the life of love and reflect on the vicissitudes of this journey through time. Similarly, if one is to know something of poverty one must spend the time and energy to be with the poor and to appropriate what is encountered there” (53).

Aligning his theory with practice, Wesley actively participated in the lives of the poor. He visited the sick; he took a collection for the poor during his sermons; he developed a “lending stock” that functions similarly to modern-day micro-finance institutions; and he sold inexpensive versions of his writing targeting the poor specifically.

In all these ways, Wesley enlivened his critique of wealth and prosperity by acting with and on behalf of the poor.

A God-Given Right to Stewardship

Having bolstered his critique on wealth and power by acting in solidarity with the poor, Wesley confirms the stark contrast of his economic ethic from the status quo by affirming the notion of stewardship and the redistribution of wealth. Influenced heavily by the early Christian communities in Acts, Wesley rejects the popularized notion of private property developed by John Locke. Wesley believes that everything in creation is the sole property of God.

Wealth, then, is not a God-given product of labor, but a resource for stewardship. Jennings states,

“Wesley’s view of stewardship is a blow at the root of the economics of greed, which continues to dominate our planet. For Wesley, the only legitimate claim to the earth’s resources is based not on industry or capital or enterprise or labor, but on the needs of our neighbor. This is the heart of evangelical economics” (116-117).

Under this premise, gaining riches equates to stealing God’s property.

To summarize, Jennings arranges Wesley’s theology in order to clarify that Wesley vividly believed in the danger of wealth and power. Therefore, Wesley actively aligns his economic ethic with the plight of the poor. Lastly, his view on riches and the poor leads him to reject private property believing that ownership resides with God alone and that humans possess the obligation of stewarding God’s resources wisely.

Give a Fish or Teach to Fish

Despite Jennings’ clear and concise rendering of Wesley’s evangelical economics, I question the practicality of the pursuit. Even though I find the arguments compelling, I wonder whether or not they provide optimal results. More precisely, does Wesley’s evangelical economic theory represent a method that lifts the poor out of poverty or does it merely recognize the plight of the poor? Clearly, Wesley wanted to actively participate in works of mercy that benefit the poor but did these deeds result in actions of charity or actions that solved the root issues of poverty?

This question, essentially, asks whether it is better to give a person a fish or to teach a person how to fish. If Wesley believed in the former, then his system encounters the danger of continual needs for assistance. If Wesley believed in the latter, his system suffers from tension because it requires capital in order to successfully alleviate poverty.

In fact, Wesley’s “lending stock” offers an excellent example of a scenario where the scalability of its success relies on increasing riches. Clearly, wealth and power is a dangerous pursuit. Life is littered with stories of Godly people losing their way as they climb the socio-economic ladder.

Photo by Esparta

Capital is a necessary function of alleviating poverty; just look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. But, Wesley would condemn the wealth and affluence of Gates (and I, too, would certainly condemn some of Gate’s practices at Microsoft) despite the clear example his foundation provides in poverty alleviation.

Given Wesley’s premises, it almost seems like Christians ought to thank God for providing society with damned souls capable of gaining prodigious amounts of capital and a concern for poverty alleviation. I’m not sure if I’m willing to accept that scenario.

Clearly, John Wesley vehemently rejects the notion that wealth equals piety and poverty equals sin. Wesley recognizes the danger in increasing riches; he promotes an active relationship that takes the side of the poor; and he suggests that Christians steward God’s resources with the poor in mind. Nevertheless, the success of stewardship and active relationships with the poor requires a certain amount of capital.

Either we praise God for those who increase riches at the expense of their soul for the sake of the poor, or we cut off the potential of alleviating poverty by merely resulting to charity from each family’s minimal surplus. Such a question, in my mind, points to tensions in Wesley’s premises. We ought to help the poor, but I contend that increasing riches could provide benefits for the poor.

Good News to the Poor provides ample food for thought for our current understanding of economics. I urge those interested in theology and economic theory to read this book despite its logical fallibilities.

Verdict: 3 out of 5
---
Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Second Treatise of Government

Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, edited by C.B. Macpherson (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980; originally published in 1690. 124 pp)

Widely known as the Father of Liberalism, John Locke’s work in epistemology and political philosophy has influenced countless nations. Born in 1632 in England, Locke attended Westminster School in London earning a bachelor’s and master’s degree. Having fled to the Netherlands to escape suspicion of an assassination plot, Locke began publishing his writing upon his return to England. With his writing gaining widespread influence, Locke died in 1704. He never married nor fathered children.

C.B. Macpherson was born in Toronto, Canada in 1911. From 1935 to his death in 1987, he taught primarily at the University of Toronto on political economy and political science. The author of numerous books, Macpherson received the Benjamin E. Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association in 1979.

“Mine!”

It begins early with a child yelling, “Mine!” We have all heard him/her bursting into tears and the quick crawl/run/waddle to a parent claiming the injustice of lost property. From an early age, we feel the seemingly self-evident truth of private property. We were given an object; we collected items; we connected those items in ways that made a new and much better object.

In all of these scenarios, we learned the idea of “mine.” In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the author presents a theological case for government authority through the principle of property.

The Premise of Property

Photo by Eduardo Amorim

Any discussion regarding John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government must center on property. A highly influential writing on political philosophy, Locke’s tome details the ways in which a society organizes and manages itself. But before one can state maxims regarding political government, one must discuss the reasons for organizing societal connections. For Locke, this reason begins with private property.

Locke’s justification for private property begins with the assumption that God the Creator fashioned a world for humanity to subdue and manage. Locke writes,

“God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (18).

The earth, then, exists in a supporting role to humankind; it carries no first order intrinsic value. Instead, it functions instrumentally for the good of humanity.

From this position, Locke believes that private property arises from mixing personal labor with land from the God-given commons of the earth. Locke argues,

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others” (19).

Thus, while God provides commons for the good of all humanity, the ability for any human to conduct work allows him or her to transfer land held in common into private property.

To illustrate, under Locke’s philosophy of property, I cannot travel to a pristine wilderness and, upon discovering it, proclaim the land my property. Instead, I must cultivate this discovered land. By building on it and utilizing its soil for food, I then possess the right to proclaim the land my private property.

In short then, Locke suggests that God, who created humanity through labor, considers humans God’s property. God provides the earth as a common for which humans can use their God-given gifts of manual labor to cultivate and transfer the earth into private hands.

Governance

The need for political government arises from this principle of private property. When a society expands beyond the simplicity of cultivating open commons into private property, the need to protect and govern property becomes an important issue. Locke reasons,

“Political power is that power, which every man having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society hath set over itself, with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good, and the preservation of their property” (89).

Even though the Second Treatise of Government explores many specific matters in the execution of governmental affairs in a united society, the core principles behind these discussions surround Locke’s theological notion of property and the need for governing those God-given rights.

Locke: An American Ideal

Interestingly, I find that Locke’s arguments sound natural as if they are ingrained in the psyche of American society and capitalism as a whole. John Dunn, in an essay titled “Measuring Locke’s Shadow” confirms this idea when he writes,

“Locke is still intractably America’s philosopher, and still very much America’s philosopher for what still seems ever more peremptorily America’s globe. He is the sign on the banner of America’s imperious external reach, her cultural, imaginative, ideological, economic, and even political Griff nach der Weltmacht [bid for world power].”

Put differently, Locke’s ideas on property and the need for government to authorize and protect it are the modus operandi for American business and politics.

Property as Dominance

John Locke

In fact, Locke’s ideas seem to be the foundation for the domination of nature for which society now encounters drastic repercussions. In other words, to align theologically with Locke’s views on property, one must translate “dominion” in Genesis 1:28 as “domination.” What else could private property mean other than the absolute control of a specific portion of God’s creation?

By assuming “domination” of God’s creation in Genesis 1:28, I find tension in Locke’s arguments. Given Locke’s premises, God owns humanity because God created us through work. Under the same assumption, God possesses all of creation. Therefore, humans cannot possess an absolute right over a portion of creation because they were not the first to labor on it.

It then follows that the God-given commons for which humans carry the right to fill and subdue is not a space which humans carry the right to section off into private property but an area owned by God given to humans in common to share and steward for the good of the whole.

Locke centers his political philosophy on a theological case for private property. By mixing labor with the God-given commons, private property arises. As an extension, political governance exists to protect that property. Nevertheless, the notion that God created and thus possesses the created world forces us to consider the earth in stewardship instead of domination. Even though we feel the pull of private property from an early age, our connection to an item through work does not require it to become our private possession.

With dense philosophical writing, Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is a difficult but rewarding read. Despite my reservations regarding Locke’s premises, this book is a must read for anyone interested in politics.

Verdict: 4 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: God of the Possible

God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God by Gregory A. Boyd (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000. 176 pp

The founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church, Greg Boyd received his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, his M.Div. from Yale Divinity School, and his B.A. from the University of Minnesota. In addition to teaching at Bethel University, Boyd founded Christus Victor Ministries, a nonprofit organization that promotes Boyd’s writing and speaking. He is a recognized theologian and author of numerous books including best-seller, Letters from a Skeptic. Married to his wife Shelley for 28 years, Gregory resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.

When Bible Study Becomes Scary

When I was young, my parents hosted a couples’ Bible study on Sunday nights. While my parents studied in the community of believers, I listened to music and played video games in the office.

One Sunday evening, I remember my mother visibly shaken after a study. During the Bible study, one member shared with the group his personal study on the actions God cannot perform. The very thought, to my mother, seemed heretical. God is God right? God can do anything!

But the personal study held certain amounts of truth. God promised that he would never destroy the earth by flood again; the Bible tells us that God cannot lie. In both instances, God intentionally limits himself.

Despite general agreement amongst the Evangelical church about God’s limits, many Christians believe that the all-powerful God knows the future comprehensively. But does Scripture point to this theological belief?

In God of the Possible, theologian and pastor Gregory Boyd argues for the open view of God: a perspective that suggests God does not conclusively know the future.

The Classical View of Foreknowledge

Classically, Christianity echoes platonic sentiments which espouse a philosophy of an unchanging and limitless God. From these principles, Christians argue that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present. But Boyd questions,

“If the future is indeed exhaustively settled in God’s mind, as the classical view holds, why does the Bible repeatedly describe God changing his mind? Why does the Bible say that God frequently alters his plans, cancels prophecies in the light of changing circumstances, and speaks about the future as a ‘maybe,’ a ‘perhaps,’ or a ‘possibility’? Why does it describe God as expressing uncertainty about the future, being disappointed in the way things turn out, and even occasionally regretting the outcome of his own decisions? If the Bible is always true—and I, for one, assume that it is—how can we reconcile this way of talking about God with the notion that the future is exhaustively settled in his mind” (11)?

The Open View of God

Given these questions, Boyd proposes the open view of God: the idea that God, as illustrated in Scripture, is capable of changing his mind regarding future events. Instead of a God so set in determined actions as a micromanager, Boyd argues that God is personable, capable of being swayed, and a kind ruler. Yet despite a belief in an open future, Boyd points toward a God who remains all-powerful. He argues,

“Open theists, rather, maintain that God can and does predetermine and foreknow whatever he wants to about the future. Indeed, God is so confident in his sovereignty, we hold, he does not need to micromanage everything. He could if he wanted to, but this would demean his sovereignty. So he chooses to leave some of the future open to possibilities, allowing them to be resolved by the decisions of free agents. It takes a greater God to steer a world populated with free agents than it does to steer a world of pre-programmed automatons” (31).

In other words, Boyd maintains that God manages a world of choices within parameters that God has set in his infinite power. As an analogy, if I plan to travel to New York City, I must make choices regarding my travel plans in order to ensure successful transportation. Yet, my decisions only make sense given the assumption that New York City exists.

At its core, God of the Possible contends that Christians must rethink the way they interpret the Bible. Currently, the seemingly contradictory passages about free will and determinism are often interpreted in such a way that one set is read literally and the other figuratively. Boyd believes, however, that an open theism allows for a literal reading of both free will and deterministic passages.

A Mischaracterization of the Classical View

Although Boyd offers compelling arguments, I believe he misunderstands the central reasons for belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present God. While many critics believe that such a God limits free will and arbitrarily chooses those who are saved and those who are condemned, Christians who believe in determinism possess such ideas because they do not feel like humanity is capable of understanding spiritual truths by their own power.

Put differently, deterministic Christians ask, “Who are we to choose salvation? If we have the power to make this decision, are we not more powerful than God?” God must reveal himself to a Christian before a response. Wouldn’t this God know those who choose him and those who do not?

Foreknowledge: Having Your Cake and Eating It Too

Additionally, I think God of the Possible rejects determinism in order to side with free will. Despite the attempt to accept both conflicting ideas, Boyd leans toward free will. I suggest, however, that both free will and determinism can exist with an all-powerful God.

Imagine you must make a choice between two options. Supposing God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present, God would know the causal chain behind either of the choices you could make. Thus, God not only knows how the future will unfold given the choice you make, he also know the course of events from the choice you didn’t make. Expanding this principle to every choice from every person, and you have a God who knows everything that everyone will ever do while we at the same time maintain free will.

While complicated, I suggest that such an idea better describes the seemingly contradictory statements as seen in the Bible. Are there things God can’t do? Perhaps. Scripture certainly hints at ways in which God limits himself. Nevertheless, self-limitation does not mean that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present. With God of the Possible, Gregory Boyd asks some interesting questions. Yet, I find his arguments inconclusive. God of the Possible is worth a read, but do so with a critical eye.

Verdict: 3 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links: