Lee Harmon's Blog, page 114
October 12, 2011
Book review: Hell Yes / Hell No
by John Noe, Ph. D.
★★★★★
Is God really going to banish the majority of his creation to eternal torment? Well, to start with, what and where is this eternal torment? Noe starts his in-depth study by discussing four words in the Bible that have been translated in different versions of the Bible as "hell." These four words are Gehenna (the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, where the fire burns non-stop), Sheol (the realm of the dead as they await resurrection, primarily in the Old Testament), Hades (which Noe labels as the Greek equivalent of Sheol), and Tartarus (referenced only in 2 Peter as a place of banishment for sinful angels.) This mismatch of meanings hardly lends strength to the doctrine of eternal damnation. Is today's understanding of hell merely a Christian invention?
Christian Universalists have a hard time believing a God of Love could be so cruel as to torture anyone for an eternity. Thankfully, a number of verses in the Bible give a different picture; a picture of universal acceptance into heaven. Noe provides a very impressive, scriptural study of both sides of the argument. Recognizing that each side has an exhaustive battery of "proof verses," and that scripture itself reminds us we are delving in a great mystery (see Romans 11:33-36), he cautions us against disregarding contrary opinions, and suggests we proceed with a high degree of humility.
While Mr. Noe and I will never be exactly on the same page (he "is not and has never been a liberal Christian" while I am precisely that), I am awed by his research. I can respect Noe's Sola Scriptura stance so long as he takes a good, hard, scholarly look at what the scriptures really say (and do not say!), and this he has done. The key word in this argument, undoubtedly, is the word "all." When the Bible says, "all," does it really mean all?
Christ gave himself a ransom for all men.
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
The examples of universal language in the scripture are numerous. Underlining this topic is one all-important question: Why did Jesus die? Especially in the minds of Universalists, who posit that everybody eventually winds up in heaven anyway. You may begin to think about the redemptive power of the Cross a little differently after this study with Noe. Consider, for example, Paul's comparison of Adam to Christ: "So it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit." Christian Universalists now charge, "if people are burning in hell, Adam did not foreshadow Christ, he eclipsed Him … religion makes Adam more powerful than Christ."
Noe proposes a reevaluation of the texts, and mediates a sort of reasonable vote on various topics. Perhaps by tallying up the strengths of the Universalist texts against the strength of the Exclusivist texts—bearing in mind what we have learned about the Greek words and meanings behind what has often been translated as hell—we can reach a conclusion.
It's no slam dunk. In fact, the voting results in a push, until Noe introduces a tie-breaker topic titled God's Revealed Character and Nature. Under this topic, he lobbies for a kind and loving God, based on the weight of scripture that describes God as someone who would never banish anyone to eternal torment. The scales are thus tipped in favor of Universalism ... as we guessed all along.
Engaging, interesting, intelligent, thought-provoking, this is a book every Christian should read. But I cannot leave this topic without reminding you of Noe's beginning assumption, a trust that scriptures are divinely inspired and internally consistent. This is me talking from here on; not Noe.
I can respect Noe's desire to give equal weight to all scripture, but this is the very reason these arguments crop up. It's not that the scriptures are ambiguous—common sense can usually determine what the author has in mind to say—it's that in places they are flat-out contradictory. This study highlights this problem very well.
The majority of the Universalist texts derive from Pauline writings. The original Paul, not later pseudo-Pauling writings such as II Thessalonians. Paul, I confess, may have been a Universalist—though, whether in his beliefs or in his dream for mankind I cannot tell. Matthew, with his repeated divisions and images of punishment and gnashing of teeth, is most certainly an Exclusivist … and a terrifying one, at that.
So if we are to take a vote to decide whether the doctrine of Exclusivity or the doctrine of Universality is correct, here is how I think we should be voting, recognizing that different writers held different opinions:
Is Paul right or wrong?Is Matthew right or wrong?Is Hebrews right or wrong?Is James right or wrong?
Or do we scrap them all, and go with Revelation's afterlife vision of a bodily resurrection and a kingdom established on the earth?
Regardless of my differences with Noe, this is a study that's worth the effort, and Noe tackles it in fair and scholarly fashion. Five stars, for sure.
★★★★★
Is God really going to banish the majority of his creation to eternal torment? Well, to start with, what and where is this eternal torment? Noe starts his in-depth study by discussing four words in the Bible that have been translated in different versions of the Bible as "hell." These four words are Gehenna (the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, where the fire burns non-stop), Sheol (the realm of the dead as they await resurrection, primarily in the Old Testament), Hades (which Noe labels as the Greek equivalent of Sheol), and Tartarus (referenced only in 2 Peter as a place of banishment for sinful angels.) This mismatch of meanings hardly lends strength to the doctrine of eternal damnation. Is today's understanding of hell merely a Christian invention?
Christian Universalists have a hard time believing a God of Love could be so cruel as to torture anyone for an eternity. Thankfully, a number of verses in the Bible give a different picture; a picture of universal acceptance into heaven. Noe provides a very impressive, scriptural study of both sides of the argument. Recognizing that each side has an exhaustive battery of "proof verses," and that scripture itself reminds us we are delving in a great mystery (see Romans 11:33-36), he cautions us against disregarding contrary opinions, and suggests we proceed with a high degree of humility.
While Mr. Noe and I will never be exactly on the same page (he "is not and has never been a liberal Christian" while I am precisely that), I am awed by his research. I can respect Noe's Sola Scriptura stance so long as he takes a good, hard, scholarly look at what the scriptures really say (and do not say!), and this he has done. The key word in this argument, undoubtedly, is the word "all." When the Bible says, "all," does it really mean all?
Christ gave himself a ransom for all men.
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
The examples of universal language in the scripture are numerous. Underlining this topic is one all-important question: Why did Jesus die? Especially in the minds of Universalists, who posit that everybody eventually winds up in heaven anyway. You may begin to think about the redemptive power of the Cross a little differently after this study with Noe. Consider, for example, Paul's comparison of Adam to Christ: "So it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit." Christian Universalists now charge, "if people are burning in hell, Adam did not foreshadow Christ, he eclipsed Him … religion makes Adam more powerful than Christ."
Noe proposes a reevaluation of the texts, and mediates a sort of reasonable vote on various topics. Perhaps by tallying up the strengths of the Universalist texts against the strength of the Exclusivist texts—bearing in mind what we have learned about the Greek words and meanings behind what has often been translated as hell—we can reach a conclusion.
It's no slam dunk. In fact, the voting results in a push, until Noe introduces a tie-breaker topic titled God's Revealed Character and Nature. Under this topic, he lobbies for a kind and loving God, based on the weight of scripture that describes God as someone who would never banish anyone to eternal torment. The scales are thus tipped in favor of Universalism ... as we guessed all along.
Engaging, interesting, intelligent, thought-provoking, this is a book every Christian should read. But I cannot leave this topic without reminding you of Noe's beginning assumption, a trust that scriptures are divinely inspired and internally consistent. This is me talking from here on; not Noe.
I can respect Noe's desire to give equal weight to all scripture, but this is the very reason these arguments crop up. It's not that the scriptures are ambiguous—common sense can usually determine what the author has in mind to say—it's that in places they are flat-out contradictory. This study highlights this problem very well.
The majority of the Universalist texts derive from Pauline writings. The original Paul, not later pseudo-Pauling writings such as II Thessalonians. Paul, I confess, may have been a Universalist—though, whether in his beliefs or in his dream for mankind I cannot tell. Matthew, with his repeated divisions and images of punishment and gnashing of teeth, is most certainly an Exclusivist … and a terrifying one, at that.
So if we are to take a vote to decide whether the doctrine of Exclusivity or the doctrine of Universality is correct, here is how I think we should be voting, recognizing that different writers held different opinions:
Is Paul right or wrong?Is Matthew right or wrong?Is Hebrews right or wrong?Is James right or wrong?
Or do we scrap them all, and go with Revelation's afterlife vision of a bodily resurrection and a kingdom established on the earth?
Regardless of my differences with Noe, this is a study that's worth the effort, and Noe tackles it in fair and scholarly fashion. Five stars, for sure.
October 11, 2011
Mark 10:46-47, One Man or Two? Part I of II
Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
//Matthew tells the same story, but with a difference:
Matthew 20:30, Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"
Which version is historically correct? One blind man or two?
Answer: you're missing the point, if you ask this question. In both Matthew and Mark, this story of Jesus' healing the blind is prefaced by the story of the sons of Zebedee, James and John, who wanted to sit on the left and right of Jesus when Jesus came into his glory. Matthew, in retelling the story of Bartimaeus, picks up on the context, and uses his literary liberty to turn the passage into a spiritual lesson. In Matthew, the story of one blind man, Bartimaeus, has become the story of two blind men ... and the two men are James and John.
More on one becoming two in a couple days ...
//Matthew tells the same story, but with a difference:
Matthew 20:30, Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"
Which version is historically correct? One blind man or two?
Answer: you're missing the point, if you ask this question. In both Matthew and Mark, this story of Jesus' healing the blind is prefaced by the story of the sons of Zebedee, James and John, who wanted to sit on the left and right of Jesus when Jesus came into his glory. Matthew, in retelling the story of Bartimaeus, picks up on the context, and uses his literary liberty to turn the passage into a spiritual lesson. In Matthew, the story of one blind man, Bartimaeus, has become the story of two blind men ... and the two men are James and John.
More on one becoming two in a couple days ...
October 10, 2011
Book review: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
By Craig Blomberg
★★★★
In an era when it's trendy to question everything written in the Bible, here's a scholarly exception. Blomberg is a conservative who isn't content to found his faith on faith alone. After a run-down of the latest methods of Biblical analysis, he tackles three primary "problems" for scholarly believers:
[1] Miracles, and the problem of credibility. This may be Blomberg's weakest argument, where he is reduced to concluding that if the resurrection really happened, then surely none of the other stories are that incredible!
[2] Contradictions within the three Synoptic Gospels. Perfect harmonization is an unreasonable expectation, and even if errors do exist (Blomberg does not admit to any, but confesses the possibility) then that may explain some of the apparent contradictions.
[3] The problem of John's Gospel. What are we to make of this maverick writing? It seems to argue against the Synoptics at every turn, and repeatedly insists upon eyewitness testimony. Blomberg's take (which I'm oversimplifying) is basically, "Let John be John;" the apparent contradictions are not severe enough to discredit either John or the Synoptics.
Blomberg then discusses the Jesus tradition outside the Gospels. What do the remaining books in the New Testament say about Jesus? What do the extra-canonical writings say? What do non-Christians say? He concludes that they reinforce the Gospel story.
So are the Gospels reliable history? Some Christians would affirm this merely because their doctrine of the inspiration of scripture requires them to, but Blomberg believes the Gospel story can stand on its own. He finds it neither a slam-dunk for or against historical reliability, but rather a topic deserving of serious scholarship, and certainly not a barrier to conservative Christian faith.
★★★★
In an era when it's trendy to question everything written in the Bible, here's a scholarly exception. Blomberg is a conservative who isn't content to found his faith on faith alone. After a run-down of the latest methods of Biblical analysis, he tackles three primary "problems" for scholarly believers:
[1] Miracles, and the problem of credibility. This may be Blomberg's weakest argument, where he is reduced to concluding that if the resurrection really happened, then surely none of the other stories are that incredible!
[2] Contradictions within the three Synoptic Gospels. Perfect harmonization is an unreasonable expectation, and even if errors do exist (Blomberg does not admit to any, but confesses the possibility) then that may explain some of the apparent contradictions.
[3] The problem of John's Gospel. What are we to make of this maverick writing? It seems to argue against the Synoptics at every turn, and repeatedly insists upon eyewitness testimony. Blomberg's take (which I'm oversimplifying) is basically, "Let John be John;" the apparent contradictions are not severe enough to discredit either John or the Synoptics.
Blomberg then discusses the Jesus tradition outside the Gospels. What do the remaining books in the New Testament say about Jesus? What do the extra-canonical writings say? What do non-Christians say? He concludes that they reinforce the Gospel story.
So are the Gospels reliable history? Some Christians would affirm this merely because their doctrine of the inspiration of scripture requires them to, but Blomberg believes the Gospel story can stand on its own. He finds it neither a slam-dunk for or against historical reliability, but rather a topic deserving of serious scholarship, and certainly not a barrier to conservative Christian faith.
October 9, 2011
Revelation 12:1, 12:3, Signs in Heaven
A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. ... Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads.
//These two "signs in heaven" set the stage for the cosmic battle of Revelation chapter 12. John first introduces us to a "woman clothed with the sun." She cries out in pain, about to give birth. But then a second sign appears, a fearsome looking dragon who "sweeps the stars out of the sky," and then stands nearby, waiting for the birth, so that he can devour her child.
The child, we are to assume, is Jesus, and the fearsome dragon is Satan. Images of King Herod also spring to mind, as he lies in wait to kill the baby Jesus. The woman clothed with the sun is often compared to Mary, and though I personally doubt this is the intended association, I won't go into that here.
But the dragon's plan is foiled. As Jesus is born, he is snatched "up to God and to his throne," who apparently lives above the stars.
These "signs in heaven" surely reflect astronomical observations, and can even pinpoint the time of year to September/October. For twenty days out of the year, the sun "clothes" Virgo, the woman, by appearing in her midsection. At the same time, Scorpio's claws seem about to catch her. And as the sun appears in Virgo, of course, the stars of that constellation cannot be seen; they have been "swept from the sky."
//These two "signs in heaven" set the stage for the cosmic battle of Revelation chapter 12. John first introduces us to a "woman clothed with the sun." She cries out in pain, about to give birth. But then a second sign appears, a fearsome looking dragon who "sweeps the stars out of the sky," and then stands nearby, waiting for the birth, so that he can devour her child.
The child, we are to assume, is Jesus, and the fearsome dragon is Satan. Images of King Herod also spring to mind, as he lies in wait to kill the baby Jesus. The woman clothed with the sun is often compared to Mary, and though I personally doubt this is the intended association, I won't go into that here.
But the dragon's plan is foiled. As Jesus is born, he is snatched "up to God and to his throne," who apparently lives above the stars.
These "signs in heaven" surely reflect astronomical observations, and can even pinpoint the time of year to September/October. For twenty days out of the year, the sun "clothes" Virgo, the woman, by appearing in her midsection. At the same time, Scorpio's claws seem about to catch her. And as the sun appears in Virgo, of course, the stars of that constellation cannot be seen; they have been "swept from the sky."
October 8, 2011
Book review: Who is Jesus?
by John Dominic Crossan and Richard G. Watts
★★★★★
This is a short, very readable book (now fifteen years old) that does an excellent job of introducing the Historical Jesus; Crossan's take in particular. Labeled by liberal Christian Marcus Borg as the "premier Jesus scholar in the world today," Crossan's picture of Jesus is controversial and base … which is precisely what you would expect of research into the "historical Jesus." It's about the flesh-and-blood man who walked the earth, not the legends that grew about him. A series of contrived questions meant to introduce the topic and the scholarship of Crossan and Watts steer the reader through the life and death of Jesus; how he lived, what he taught, what he really hoped to accomplish.
According to Crossan, Jesus was not really born of a virgin, performed no nature miracles, and never rose from the dead. Probably, he was never buried to begin with, as that would be uncommon for a crucifixion victim. Jesus was a social revolutionary with a humanitarian vision of a "Kingdom of God," which, by Crossan's definition, is how Jesus imagined "the way a kingdom on this earth would be established if God were in control." This vision left Jesus in conflict with the Roman Empire, and eventually led to his arrest and sentence. By the Romans, of course, not the Jews.
Crossan insists that his book is not meant to be about Christ, but only about Jesus. Faith is not about Jesus, or about any historical reconstruction of his life, but about Christ. "Jesus"is the historical person; "Christ" affirms who he is for believers, and Christian faith is always faith in the historical Jesus as a manifestation of God to us. As Crossan explains, faith cannot ignore or bypass the historical facts, but faith goes beyond the facts to wrestle with the meaning.
★★★★★
This is a short, very readable book (now fifteen years old) that does an excellent job of introducing the Historical Jesus; Crossan's take in particular. Labeled by liberal Christian Marcus Borg as the "premier Jesus scholar in the world today," Crossan's picture of Jesus is controversial and base … which is precisely what you would expect of research into the "historical Jesus." It's about the flesh-and-blood man who walked the earth, not the legends that grew about him. A series of contrived questions meant to introduce the topic and the scholarship of Crossan and Watts steer the reader through the life and death of Jesus; how he lived, what he taught, what he really hoped to accomplish.
According to Crossan, Jesus was not really born of a virgin, performed no nature miracles, and never rose from the dead. Probably, he was never buried to begin with, as that would be uncommon for a crucifixion victim. Jesus was a social revolutionary with a humanitarian vision of a "Kingdom of God," which, by Crossan's definition, is how Jesus imagined "the way a kingdom on this earth would be established if God were in control." This vision left Jesus in conflict with the Roman Empire, and eventually led to his arrest and sentence. By the Romans, of course, not the Jews.
Crossan insists that his book is not meant to be about Christ, but only about Jesus. Faith is not about Jesus, or about any historical reconstruction of his life, but about Christ. "Jesus"is the historical person; "Christ" affirms who he is for believers, and Christian faith is always faith in the historical Jesus as a manifestation of God to us. As Crossan explains, faith cannot ignore or bypass the historical facts, but faith goes beyond the facts to wrestle with the meaning.
October 7, 2011
Matthew 2:1, The Three Wise Men
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.
//Quick, now. How many wise men (magi) were there?
If you said three, you're probably right.
Yes, I know, the Bible doesn't say. How often have we all heard (usually in a smug tone) that the Christmas stories have it all wrong, and nobody knows how many wise men there really were?
It may be that the idea of three wise men derives from the three gifts they brought: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Or another reason may be seen in the stars: Many traditions have called the three stars of Orion's belt the "kings" or "magi." They form a direct line to Sirius and appear to follow him straight to the birthplace of the sun. Try to find them early on Christmas morning—they'll be the brightest stars you see. (I've never sat out on Christmas morning looking for the magi in the sky, so don't take my word for this; I'm merely passing on a controversial explanation.) But there's a far more logical reason to imagine there were exactly three wise men.
For whatever reason, the story of Jesus closely mimics a number of Old Testament themes, and Matthew especially loves to relate these themes. Jesus' birth is no exception to the rule. The Christ child is born miraculously of a virgin; Isaac, considered a typology of Christ in the Old Testament (he is offered as a sacrifice by his father, just like Jesus) is likewise born miraculously, this time to a postmenopausal woman. So, let's go back to the story of Abraham and Sarah, parents of Isaac. What do we find?
Three wise men! Three mysterious strangers led by God to Abraham and Sarah, foretelling Isaac's miraculous birth.
//Quick, now. How many wise men (magi) were there?
If you said three, you're probably right.
Yes, I know, the Bible doesn't say. How often have we all heard (usually in a smug tone) that the Christmas stories have it all wrong, and nobody knows how many wise men there really were?
It may be that the idea of three wise men derives from the three gifts they brought: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Or another reason may be seen in the stars: Many traditions have called the three stars of Orion's belt the "kings" or "magi." They form a direct line to Sirius and appear to follow him straight to the birthplace of the sun. Try to find them early on Christmas morning—they'll be the brightest stars you see. (I've never sat out on Christmas morning looking for the magi in the sky, so don't take my word for this; I'm merely passing on a controversial explanation.) But there's a far more logical reason to imagine there were exactly three wise men.
For whatever reason, the story of Jesus closely mimics a number of Old Testament themes, and Matthew especially loves to relate these themes. Jesus' birth is no exception to the rule. The Christ child is born miraculously of a virgin; Isaac, considered a typology of Christ in the Old Testament (he is offered as a sacrifice by his father, just like Jesus) is likewise born miraculously, this time to a postmenopausal woman. So, let's go back to the story of Abraham and Sarah, parents of Isaac. What do we find?
Three wise men! Three mysterious strangers led by God to Abraham and Sarah, foretelling Isaac's miraculous birth.
October 6, 2011
Book review: Everything I Know About God I Learned From Football
by Eric Chaffin
★★★★
My beloved Vikings are 0-4. Could be a long season. In desperation, I found this little book of inspiration. The Forward promises, "Everything I Know About God I Learned From Football is a book that beautifully offers both the sports fan and the disciple of Christ a formula for success."
Chaffin tells stories from the gridiron, and relates them to the Bible and Christian life. He writes from a conservative perspective, providing encouragement and spiritual direction. It's a serious topic, but told in a way that makes sense even with a beer in one hand and a remote control in the other. Each chapter concludes with a red-zone push (a bulleted summary) and a post-game kneel (a short prayer).
Cute, personal, a little sappy from a guy's perspective. Buy it for your guy and set it on the armrest of his easy chair for halftime reading. Maybe he won't totally forget about God this Sunday.
★★★★
My beloved Vikings are 0-4. Could be a long season. In desperation, I found this little book of inspiration. The Forward promises, "Everything I Know About God I Learned From Football is a book that beautifully offers both the sports fan and the disciple of Christ a formula for success."
Chaffin tells stories from the gridiron, and relates them to the Bible and Christian life. He writes from a conservative perspective, providing encouragement and spiritual direction. It's a serious topic, but told in a way that makes sense even with a beer in one hand and a remote control in the other. Each chapter concludes with a red-zone push (a bulleted summary) and a post-game kneel (a short prayer).
Cute, personal, a little sappy from a guy's perspective. Buy it for your guy and set it on the armrest of his easy chair for halftime reading. Maybe he won't totally forget about God this Sunday.
October 5, 2011
1 Kings 3:24-25, Cut the baby in two!
Then the king said, "Bring me a sword." So they brought a sword for the king. He then gave an order: "Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other."
//Everyone knows this famous story displaying the wisdom of King Solomon. As it happened, two women bore babies within days of each other. The two are sleeping alone in their home at night, when one rolled over on her newborn son, killing him. So, she got up and swapped sons.
In the morning, the second woman realizes what happened, and took the issue to the king. Solomon says cut the baby in half, and naturally the true mother objects, offering to give the baby to the other in order to save its life. In this way, Solomon learns the true mother of the living child, and awards it to her.
Ever wonder how this became a legal matter in the first place? Where were the fathers? Why are two women living alone in the same home?
Turns out the two were prostitutes. But that only brings up another sticky question. How is it that two prostitutes easily gain presence in the king's court? Weren't seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines enough for Solomon?
Sometimes the story behind the story is even more bizarre.
//Everyone knows this famous story displaying the wisdom of King Solomon. As it happened, two women bore babies within days of each other. The two are sleeping alone in their home at night, when one rolled over on her newborn son, killing him. So, she got up and swapped sons.
In the morning, the second woman realizes what happened, and took the issue to the king. Solomon says cut the baby in half, and naturally the true mother objects, offering to give the baby to the other in order to save its life. In this way, Solomon learns the true mother of the living child, and awards it to her.
Ever wonder how this became a legal matter in the first place? Where were the fathers? Why are two women living alone in the same home?
Turns out the two were prostitutes. But that only brings up another sticky question. How is it that two prostitutes easily gain presence in the king's court? Weren't seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines enough for Solomon?
Sometimes the story behind the story is even more bizarre.
October 4, 2011
Book review: Angel
by Laura Lee
★★★★
An uncomfortable page-turner. I'm glad I read it, but glad to be finished. Not that the book is distasteful; it was just a foreign and unsettling topic for me. But that's why I asked Lee for a review copy.
Lee's protagonist is a middle-age minister who has lost his wife, and suddenly finds himself attracted to a young man, despite the church's disapproval. They find it necessary to hide their friendship, which is both demeaning and spiritually draining. Shipwreck seems inevitable.
Lee writes with insight and flounce, and you just can't put the darn thing down. The language is a bit crude in places, but appropriately so, as it does define the characters and our minister's descent/growth (I'll let you decide which). The story ends appropriately, which is all I dare say on that matter, except to promise it will leave you thinking about the not-so-subtle discrimination against sexual orientation in today's Christianity, and the emotional scars and marginalizing it causes.
★★★★
An uncomfortable page-turner. I'm glad I read it, but glad to be finished. Not that the book is distasteful; it was just a foreign and unsettling topic for me. But that's why I asked Lee for a review copy.
Lee's protagonist is a middle-age minister who has lost his wife, and suddenly finds himself attracted to a young man, despite the church's disapproval. They find it necessary to hide their friendship, which is both demeaning and spiritually draining. Shipwreck seems inevitable.
Lee writes with insight and flounce, and you just can't put the darn thing down. The language is a bit crude in places, but appropriately so, as it does define the characters and our minister's descent/growth (I'll let you decide which). The story ends appropriately, which is all I dare say on that matter, except to promise it will leave you thinking about the not-so-subtle discrimination against sexual orientation in today's Christianity, and the emotional scars and marginalizing it causes.
October 3, 2011
Mark 6:45, The Great Omission
And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, while he sent away the people.
//A while back, I reviewed a book titled "Q." This gospel, meaning "quelle," or source, is considered to be the other half of the two-source theory. The idea is this: Most of the book of Mark is repeated in both Matthew and Luke, making one think that those two Gospel writers wrote with Mark in hand. But Matthew and Luke also share a number of other common themes, enough for scholars to hypothesize the early existence of another document, a sayings Gospel, which they've unimaginatively titled "Q," meaning quelle, or source.
The two-source theory has become the most commonly accepted explanation among scholars of how the Synoptic Gospels were derived. But there is potentially a big problem with it. Today's verse begins a long passage in Mark, covering nearly two chapters from 6:45-8:26, that do not seem to be represented in Luke. If Luke used Mark as a source, why did he omit this section?
The Great Omission included Jesus walking on water, his healing at Gennesaret, the healing of a deaf and dumb man, the feeding of the four thousand, the Syrophoenician woman, and the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida, among other pericopes.
//A while back, I reviewed a book titled "Q." This gospel, meaning "quelle," or source, is considered to be the other half of the two-source theory. The idea is this: Most of the book of Mark is repeated in both Matthew and Luke, making one think that those two Gospel writers wrote with Mark in hand. But Matthew and Luke also share a number of other common themes, enough for scholars to hypothesize the early existence of another document, a sayings Gospel, which they've unimaginatively titled "Q," meaning quelle, or source.
The two-source theory has become the most commonly accepted explanation among scholars of how the Synoptic Gospels were derived. But there is potentially a big problem with it. Today's verse begins a long passage in Mark, covering nearly two chapters from 6:45-8:26, that do not seem to be represented in Luke. If Luke used Mark as a source, why did he omit this section?
The Great Omission included Jesus walking on water, his healing at Gennesaret, the healing of a deaf and dumb man, the feeding of the four thousand, the Syrophoenician woman, and the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida, among other pericopes.
