Abusing Memory: The Healing Theology of Agnes Sanford by Jane Grumprecht
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
This was a good refutation of much silliness and error which has crept into Christian counseling: “healing of memories,” “healing your inner child,” etc. Gumprecht show how all of this goes back to New Age/ New Thought influences. For me, the best part of the book was her expose of Freud and Jung.
Prayers and Meditations of St. Anselm with the Proslogion by Anselm of Canterbury
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
I’m not sure how to process all the prayers to saints (deep devotion, but screams “idolatry” to my Protestant scruples), but a wonderful example of true theology, which should lead to prayer and meditation. Ironic (or is it?) that the theologian who gave us the doctrine of the substitutionay atonement should have prayed so fervently to Mary and John the Baptist? Thanks God that he uses confused people like us to figure out the truth over long periods of time! Should make us more humble about what we think we know so clearly …
The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church by John Meyendorff
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Although this book is a collection of essays by Eastern Orthodox writers, it is useful for Protestants who are rediscovering their family history, namely the history of the Church. The Orthodox churches have preserved many ancient traditions. We should seek to understand them, at the least, and not dismiss them out of hand. There is also much valuable information for countering the claims of Roman Catholics. The Orthodox claim to be “catholic,” but not Roman. There is a plethora of misinformation about Romanc Catholicism, and the authors in this volume write in an irenic and sympathetic tone. They sincerely desire unity among all Christians, and not mere platitudes about “catholicity.” For some, “catholicity” seems to mean that we can all just affirm the Apostle’s Creed, and then go our separate ways. This is not what “catholicity” meant to the Church Fathers, nor do I believe the Apostles would be pleased with our reductionism. Lastly, for those of us in the CREC, I believe this book contains gems of insight into the importance of the “local church,” and how the primacy of the local church relates to “catholicity.” Highly recommended for the stout of heart!
Paul R. House makes an interesting connection between the Teacher’s pursuit of wisdom in Ecclesiastes and Eve’s pursuit of the forbidden fruit: “Ecclesiastes 1:12-18 laments the inaccessibility of certain types of wisdom. It is interesting to note that in Genesis 3:6 it is the woman’s drive to acquire wisdom uniquely God’s that partly fuels her decision to sin. She wished to gain the wisdom of opened eyes, of the knowledge of good and evil and of never-ending life. Likewise the Teacher desires wisdom that has not been granted him. Has he overstepped his own creaturely bounds, or does he seek legitimately to know God’s truth? Is it possible within a sinful context to learn what he wants to know? If not, does he create his own burdensome world?” (Old Testament Theology, 473).
Found a wonderful link by accident: Chesterton Day By Day!
Now that the Spiderman triology is complete, I’ve noticed a common theme. None of the villains in the Spiderman movies is really evil. They all have evil thrust upon them, either by some potion, invention, dysfunctional relationship, or an accidental gun-shot. Additionally, in the last two movies, the villains have good motives–Dr. Octupus is seeking the advancement of science and Sandman is trying to save his sick daughter. The third movie introduces a black blob which causes people to become wicked, but it only magnifies their latent wickedness. It’s hard to actually blame those overcome by the black blob.
Since the third movie highlighted the problem of evil (in the form of the black blob), it had to deal with forgiveness. I was hopeful when Peter’s Aunt gave a little sermon about revenge and forgiveness, but I should have known better. Her advice culminated in: “forgive yourself.” Um, okay … Perhaps that’s why the movie ended with meaninful looks rather than an actual apology from Peter. The only real apology came from the Sandman, but that was an apology for an accident.
So, once again, Hollywood skirts around the problem of evil and teaches our children that evil isn’t really their problem. They aren’t really to blame for their actions–they just need to put on a new suit. Of course, that’s part of the answer–we need to put on the righteous robes of Jesus (or, rather, He needs to put them on us). But, we won’t realize the need for a new suit unless we realize the depth of our own sin. Nor can we take off the black suit, even if we’re in a church bell tower–God Himself is the only one who can take it off.
As I pursue doctoral work on John Calvin and the Lord’s Supper, I’m reading through the Institutes as well as his Commentaries, in addition to a plethora of books and articles on Calvin. I’m constantly struck at how practical and pastoral Calvin is. The caricature of Calvin as a logic-chopping and fire-breathing predestinarian is simply not true (though Calvin does breathe fire at times!). So, I’d thought I’d highlight the practical and pastoral side of Calvin is a series of posts.
Calvinists have a low view of man because we have a high view of God.
“Thus, from the feeling of our own ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, and–what is more–depravity and corruption, we recognize that the true light of wisdom, sound virtue, full abundance of every good, and purity of righteousness rest in the Lord alone. To this extent we are prompted by our own ills to contemplate the good things of God; and we cannot seriously aspire to him before we begin to become displeased with ourselves,” (Institutes, I.1.i).
Calvinists stress the sinfulness of man because we want to exalt the holiness of God.
Going through my journal of my trip to Italy (5 years ago), I remembered a bit of history which is fascinating and ironic: the evil Emperor Nero had a fantastic “Villa of Gold” built for himself but, after he died, Titus (I think) destroyed it. Ancient Romans had a tidy custom of wiping out the monuments of evil rulers. Titus (I think) then used the stones from Nero’s villa to build the Colosseum. When the Church finally conquered Rome, stones were plundered from the Colosseum to build St. Peter’s Basilica. Apparantly, Bernini even used some of the stones to build the magnificent altar. So the stones which witnessed Christian martyrs torn to shreds eventually became part of the earthly center of the Western church.
1 Peter 2:5, “you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
(The choir I was touring with sang during a Mass in St. Peter’s. Quite an amazing experience. I can relate to the emissaries from Russia who saw Hagia Sophia for the first time and decided to convert to Christianity because it looked like heaven on earth. Our architecture really does express our worldview.)
Well, we (the entire family) are off to Bristol, UK tomorrow. We’re only going over the weekend. We’ve flown to the West Coast before, and this isn’t any longer. I’m going to meet my supervisor for my doctoral program, and kick things off officially. Any spare prayers you have are most welcome!!!
 | dave soderberg on Through New Eyes |
| dave soderberg on Why I Don’t Blog Mo… |
 | Silas on Education |
 | sandrar on Sermon Outline – Provide… |
 | Joe Hobbs on Humble Sin In An Election… |
