I didn't realize before I started reading this that it's a collection of essays rather than a more coherent book. It felt disjointed to me but that's why.
I also had not heard of this author or read her other books, so I suspect someone who is more familiar with her would appreciate this one more than I did. And there is no denying that River Jordan is a very good writer and story teller.
If you enjoy spiritual memoirs you might like this one.
I received an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review
I am not a parent, but I wanted to read Cindy's book because I heard her speak at The Evolving Faith Conference in 2018 and I love her perspective on raising children and interacting with children.
If you appreciate the perspectives of Rachel Held Evans, Sarah Bessey, Jen Hatmaker, etc. this is another great book for you to read.
Reasons I thought I would like this book:
• fantasy/magic
• Kell's magical multi-sided coat.
• multiverse, travel between parallel worlds
• magic doors between worlds
• quest
• snark/wittty banter
• strong female character who wants to be a pirate
Reasons I did not actually like this book:
• torture, violent and bloody = not for me
• too grim & depressing (I have no desire to re-read The Hunger Games series for the same reason)
• not big on the historical fiction or historical fantasy stuff for the most part
• it takes a really long time to get to the plot and I got bored. (Lila and Kell don't even meet until over 1/4 through the book.)
The Tolkien character frustrated me quite a bit. I found him quite insufferable!
Somewhat interesting discussion/debate over the differing theologies of the Eucharist...
I highly doubt I will ever feel the need or desire to re-read this one... and I feel like the target audience for this might be quite small... I love theology and I was getting bored at times with this book.
I loved this book so much! I love Sam and Zoe and their friendship! That's what this book is really about, is friendship. Well, and family. And how all relationships are complicated. But I love the themes of friendship and the importance of being seen and known and loved for who you are.
Oh, and of course I loved star world, their fantasy world that they wrote together via text message.
And even though I received a free e-book from netgalley in exchange for review I ended up buying the audiobook and I love the audiobook version as well. I think I will want to read this again in the future.
I loved this short book! I totally missed Abby's viral commencement speech from 2018, so I'm glad she expanded it a bit into this book. I love her main message and her “new rules”:
New Rules:
1. Create your own path.
2. Be grateful for what you have AND demand what you deserve.
3. Lead now, from wherever you are.
4. Failure means you're finally in the game.
5. Be FOR each other.
6. Believe in yourself, demand the ball.
7. Lead with humanity; cultivate leaders.
8. You are not alone, you've got your pack.
There is so much in this book: a lot of really interesting ideas related to Christology. I don't think I completely agree with Rohr here, but I do find a lot of things helpful, and I will most likely re-read this one. The central question of the book is who is Christ, the LOGOS.
I read the first chapter about 10 times because it's dense and deep and he gives me a lot to think about. He presents a valuable perspective and different ways of looking at things but I have a lot of resistance in me to some of his ideas. I don't agree with the way he seems to want to make such a firm distinction between Jesus of Nazareth and “The Christ” Towards the beginning of the book he asks: “How is Christ's function or role different from Jesus's?” (11). Rohr's answer is that Jesus is limited, particular, and earthbound, while “the Christ” is unlimited, universal, and cosmic. Rohr writes: “Christ . . . was clearly not just Jesus of Nazareth, but something much more immense” (3).
Some of the questions Rohr asks at the beginning:
“What if Christ is a name for the transcendent within of every ‘thing' in the universe?
“What if Christ is a name for the immense spaciousness of all true Love?
“What if Christ refers to an infinite horizon that pulls us from within and pulls us forward too?
“What if Christ is another name for everything – in its fullness?”
On the whole, I can recommend this book to people interested in theology and Christology but would want to also recommend they read N. T. Wright and some others as a comparison.
I do not agree with Borg on everything, but there are still some interesting things in this book.
I don't agree with his strong distinction between the “pre-Easter Jesus” and the “post-Easter Christ”. Borg is operating from a skepticism that follows from the Jesus Seminar's take on the historical Jesus and historical accuracy of the Gospels
But I really liked the last two chapters of the book:
Chapter 5: Jesus, the Wisdom of God: Sophia Become Flesh
In this chapter Borg connects the language about Sophia/wisdom in the old testament with Jesus. He writes: “the language about Sophia is not simply personification of wisdom in female form, but personification of God in female form. Sophia is a female image for God, a lens through which divine reality is imaged as a woman. In short, the use of Sophia language involves female imagery for speaking of God in the biblical tradition itself.”
Borg continues, “The connection to Jesus' image of God as compassionate, as “like a womb,” is striking. To say that God is like a womb is to say that God is like a woman, just as the personification of God as Sophia suggests that God is like a woman; and Jesus is a spokesperson for the compassion of Sophia/God.”
Chapter 6: Images of Jesus and Images of the Christian Life
Borg claims that there are three “macro-stories” at the heart of Scripture that shape the Bible as a whole.
1. The story of the exodus from Egypt
2. The story of the exile and return from Babylon
3. The priestly story regarding the temple, priesthood, and sacrifice.
Much of Western Christianity has placed most or all of the emphasis on the priestly story, which has led to distortions in our understanding of the Christian life. One of these distortions is a “static understanding of the Christian life” where it is an ongoing cycle of sin, guilt, and forgiveness. It also leads to a misunderstanding of Christianity as “primarily a religion of the afterlife”, where all that matters is “being right with God before we die: believe now for the sake of salvation later”.
I really appreciated his comments on the exodus story and and the exile/return story.
And I really liked one of the last things Borg wrote at the end of the book:
“Believing in Jesus does not mean believing doctrines about him. Rather, it means to give one's heart, one's self at its deepest level, to the post-Easter Jesus who is the living Lord, the side of God turned toward us, the face of God, the Lord who is also the Spirit” (Borg).
Superman has always been one of my absolute favorite superheroes, and I was OBSESSED with the tv show, Smallville, and Tom Welling as Clark Kent. So I was predisposed to enjoy this book. I also was definitely picture Tom Welling as Clark Kent along with the other actors from the show as I read this.
I'm not sure I liked this one enough to re-read it though. I mostly just want to re-watch Smallville now...
I mostly agree with Thomas Jay Oord. And I pretty much knew that going into this book, so I was predisposed to like it. I don't believe that God is “up there” orchestrating every detail of our lives, causing or even “allowing” the pain and suffering and evil and death that we experience in our lives. I don't believe it works that way. And Oord does a good job of explaining why that is a really good conclusion to come to based upon Scripture as well as everything we experience in life and know to be true.
Oord pushes back on the common answers and cliches people use about how “everything happens for a reason” and “it's all part of God's plan”, and “his ways are higher than our ways” so, mystery.
Key quotes that set up the book:
“The big ideas in this book share two assumptions, and I want to mention them before going further. The first is that God loves us all, all the time. God loves everyone and everything, all creatures great and small. God never stops loving, even for one moment, because God's nature is love. God listens, feels, and responds by acting for good. God wills our well-being, not our woe being.”“It doesn't help to say God loves us if we have no idea what love is!”“By contrast, I believe what God thinks is loving matches what we think is loving. Our intuitions of love fit God's view of love. We best define this shared meaning when love is understood as acting intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being. In short, love aims to do good. That view of love applies to Creator and creatures. God always loves, and God's love is always good. Every idea I advocate in this book assumes God is loving.”
His five chapters that make up his argument/solution to the problem of evil are the following:
1. God Can't Prevent Evil
2. God Feels Our Pain
3. God Works to Heal
4. God Squeezes Good from Bad
5. God Needs Our Cooperation
He says that together, these five ideas give us an actual solution to the problem of evil, but they aren't satisfying on their own. All five are essential to see the big picture.
I really love this part towards the end of the book:
“I no longer fear God. It took a while to arrive where I am today. I had to overcome fear-based theologies. I realized the Old Testament statement, “fear God,” is better phrased, “respect God.” I came to believe biblical stories portraying God as vengeful were inaccurate. I had to ignore voices in culture, the church, and history that preach this fear. The key to overcoming my fear was realizing God always loves me. God's perfect love cast out my fear of God!”
I disagree with so much of Vanhoozer and Strachan's theology and interpretations on things.
First example:
I realize this was kind of a side point, but at the beginning of chapter 3, Vanhoozer is talking about Heidegger's thoughts on anxiety, which included a belief that all humans deal with anxiety because of our fear of death which we know is inevitable.
But I take issue strongly with the following:
“We are all suffering from a bad case of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Anxiety medications abound, as do types of anxiety: social anxiety, posttraumatic stress, phobias, depression, and panic attacks. An estimated 40 percent of Americans suffer from some kind of anxiety disorder, and antidepressant or antianxiety medications (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft) are frequently prescribed.[5] Yet one wonders whether certain drug-induced tranquility might not count as “saying ‘Peace' when there is no peace” (Ezek. 13:10 altered). The closest medical equivalent to what Heidegger meant by anxiety is probably “generalized anxiety disorder.”“According to Heidegger, there is no particular trigger to anxiety (in contrast to phobias, which have specific objects, like spiders or public speaking): it is rather a spiritual condition on the borderlands of despair, less a specific feeling than a mood.”
I will not tolerate this kind of over-spiritualizing of mental health issues.
I have zero patience with someone, especially someone in a leadership position, who tries to downplay or dismiss the medical side of mental health issues like anxiety and depression. Vanhoozer is describing Heidegger's views here, I think, but he doesn't contradict him either. He goes so far as to say that general anxiety disorder “is rather a spiritual condition on the borderlands of despair”. I just wrote a 16-page paper for my practical theology class last semester arguing against that kind of harmful theology and praxis! It is irresponsible and dangerous to over-spiritualize mental health struggles.
Another thing that irritated me throughout the book was the ongoing negativity towards those who want to teach theology, especially since both of these dudes teach theology!!!!
In chapter 3 Vanhoozer wrote: “I've labored in the field of theology for years, but my uncle still wants to know when I'm going to get a real job. So does the handyman I sometimes hire. I get it. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. No doubt many Christians would be happy to add: and those who really can't, teach theology.”
Please, for the love of everything good in this world, STOP! STOP DISRESPECTING THE VOCATION OF TEACHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the preface to the book they wrote, “It takes wisdom and joyful enthusiasm to be a pastor. To get a doctorate, you only need to have a modicum of intelligence and the ability to grind it out. I'm afraid that you may only be qualified to be an academic, not a pastor. Ministry is a lot harder than scholarship.”
Really? Only a modicum of intelligence? Come on! I was annoyed by Vanhoozer and Strachan's apparent disdain for theologians in the academy who want to be in the academy teaching as opposed to being a pastor of a church. This makes no sense when they themselves are professor theologians, which they admit, so I'm still rather confused by this. They also wrote, “The underlying conviction is that theological minds need to return to where they belong: in the body of Christ.” Again, this seems to imply that there is no need for any of us in the academy. But surely this is not what they mean. Because they went on to say, “We don't wish to exaggerate: there is a place for academic theology, but it is second place. First place—pride of theological place—belongs to the pastor-theologian.” Well I disagree. Why do we have to say one is in the first place or second place. Why can't we just say that both things are needed?
I will say that I agree that pastors need to be theologians also. It is important for pastors to always be reading, studying, and learning throughout their ministry so they can use that in their ministry. It seems like that should be a given, and I guess this book exists because that is not always the case.