Focus on the Author: Cheryl Petersen

Author of 21st Century Science and Health

//I hope to mix in the occasional author bio, or perhaps an author’s personal motivation/inspiration for writing a book. Authors, if I’ve reviewed your book (or if I have it for review) feel free to contribute a short post, if you’d like further exposure. To kick off this idea, here’s a short note from the author of 21^st Century Science and Health. The Dubious Disciple review can be found at here. http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/07/book-review-21st-century-science-health.html

When Cheryl sent a review copy of her book, I bluntly asked about her authority to basically rewrite the founding document of her religion. It’s a pointed question, to be sure, but Cheryl replied quite gracefully as follows:

Hi Lee,

The authority behind a revision was a tough tough question for me because I had nothing to go on except a persistent resilient internal demand that an update is sensible, practical, legitimate, and necessary.

I avoided revising for years, justifying my neglect with the fact that I’d risen in the church ranks and was heavily involved in what church authorities approved of. I was a Journal listed Christian Science practitioner, taught by a respected Teacher in the movement who also was on the Board of Directors. But, I could see and more importantly, admit, that my actions appeared futile and hypocritical. Why could I speak and write in contemporary words but insist readers read an outdated book?

To put it bluntly, I finally admitted I was following church authorities before I was following Christian Science.

In a roundabout way, it was the public that gave me permission to revise Science and Health. The public wanted a book they could read and understand, referring as nearly as possible to what Eddy dubbed Christian Science. It is all ironic now, because the public was basically telling me they didn’t want to come to me anymore for insight and healing, they wanted to read about Christian Science and get to know God on their own, with God.

Honest, moral, spiritually minded, scholarly, and courageous people in the public actually worked with me for years, until the revision had enough momentum that I was left to continue the project.

When it came time to copyright, my name was affixed to 21^st Century Science and Health, because I have done the greater majority of the work.

There are some church members who feel adamantly that a revision is wrong, they absolutely can’t envision reading anything but Eddy’s last version of Science and Health.  A very few people believe the Christian Science Board of Directors should be the only outlet for a revision however, I’ve had extensive communication with the Board and their mentality is excruciatingly afraid to admit to a revision. In fact, the fear and confusion was so predominant that I withdrew my church membership in order to break contact with that mentality.

I have studied extensively Bible revisions and history, however I firmly believe the Science and Health is not a Bible, nor is it part of the Bible. Therefore, my technique for revising is different.

I apologize for the length of my answer. Your question was excellent.

Sincerely,

Cheryl

Mark 12:15-16, Render to Caesar ...

Shall we give[tribute to Caesar], or shall we not give? But [Jesus], knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

//One theme running through the New Testament is the contrast between the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdom of Caesar. In today's verse, Jesus is asked whether it is appropriate to pay taxes to Rome, and he requests a coin. Holding up the penny, Jesus asks two questions: Whose image is on the coin, and whose inscription?

All Jews knew full well the commandment to avoid graven images, yet they were carrying the image of Caesar around in their pockets. They also knew full well how the inscription on the coin declared Caesar to be the "son of god." The criticism in Jesus' lesson is unmistakable.

But then, Jesus throws them for a loop. Unexpectedly granting approval for the Jews to carry such coins, he tells them to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and to God that which belongs to God.

The Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus seems to be saying, has nothing to do with the politics of this world, and is not at all in conflict with Roman occupation. Lift your eyes above your mundane dreams of political redemption from the Romans, and recognize the reign of God where it truly lives.

Isaiah 49:3, The Real Suffering Servant?

He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."  

//Every Christian knows about the Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah chapter 53. This became an important theme for New Testament writers in describing a new kind of Messiah. Jesus, Christians insist, died as prophesied by Isaiah. As a suffering servant.

He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. ... he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. ... He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. --excerpts from Isaiah 53.

But you're unlikely to find a Jew who interprets Isaiah chapter 53 the way Christians do. The suffering servant, they say, is a picture of Israel. Not of a man. Before Jesus arrived on the scene, not a single Jewish text interpreted the passage messianically. 

In my upcoming book about John's Gospel, I rely heavily upon this image of a suffering Messiah. This is, I feel, true to the teachings of John. See John 12:35, where John quotes word-for-word the very verses in Isaiah leading up to the Suffering Servant passage, and concludes that "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."

So who's right? Jews or Christians? The 53rd chapter of Isaiah is imbedded within a long discourse, as God pleads: "Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation." (Isaiah 51:4). "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called." (Isaiah 48:12). And, of course, today's verse, which names the servant. It is Israel.

While by no means conclusive, the Jewish interpretation of their own scripture does seem most logical.

Book review: God, Freedom, and Evil

by Alvin Plantinga

★★★★

How do I rate a book that will bore most of you but titillate the rest? Half way between two stars and six stars, I guess.

I’m secure in my status as a religion nerd, so I’ll admit I loved it. This is an introduction to philosophical apologetics, a short little book that can be read in a couple hours, and understood in five or six hours. Philosophical reflection, Plantinga assures us, is not that different than just thinking hard. It’s an excursion into the joy of logic … for the fun of it, not necessarily to reach any meaningful conclusions. He spends half the book discussing the problem of evil, and the other half on natural theology. Thus half of the book presents a case against God and half attempts to prove he exists. In the second half, Plantinga briefly introduces the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument, and then spends the rest of the book on the Ontological Argument.

Plantinga’s argument against the problem of evil is fascinating yet unsatisfying, and his discussion of the ontological argument is equally fun but equally unconvincing … like one of those puzzles where you know there’s something wrong and can’t quite place your finger on it.

One note: Do not try to read an electronic version! The constant referring backward to numbered arguments will be very frustrating without a paper copy.

Mark 6:8-9, Should We Carry a Staff?

He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff--no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts, but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics.

//So Mark’s Gospel explicitly commands evangelists to carry a staff. But here is Matthew’s version:

"Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.” –Matthew 10:10

The two Gospels thus stand as polar opposites. Matthew expressly forbids a staff, Mark commands one. So which did Jesus say? Carry a staff or not? We may be tempted to go with the earliest version—Mark’s—and assume Matthew amended Mark’s Gospel for his own purpose. But the analysis turns more complex when we read Luke:

And He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.—Luke 9:3

Of course, Luke is also written after Mark, and like Matthew, written with a copy of Mark in front of the author. But most scholars consider Luke and Matthew to be independent sources, not dependent upon one another. So, what are the odds that they would BOTH change the Gospel of Mark, in precisely the same location, with a direct contradiction?

Answer: Either Mark was inadvertently changed later, or Matthew and Luke must have had another common source besides Mark … perhaps the Q Gospel. This, of course, means the source instructing evangelists to not carry a staff precedes the instruction to carry a staff, and becomes the original desire of Jesus.

Leave your staff home, guys.

Genesis 2:9, How many trees in the Garden of Eden?

And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

//Lots of trees in the garden, but two were special, the two that were planted in the middle of the garden … or was it just a single tree? God refers to only one as he instructs Adam:

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." –Genesis 2:16-17

Later, the serpent tempts Eve, asking her what she is allowed to eat. She mentions only the one “in the middle of the garden”:

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" –Genesis 3:2-3

Could the two trees have been one and the same? When Revelation is penned promising a new Eden, why is there only one great tree there? Is the tree of life also the tree of knowledge? After all, what did Adam and Eve learn to do with their new knowledge? They made life.

Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. –Genesis 4:1

Book review: Clear Faith

by Susan Stover

★★★★

Did Jesus rise bodily from the dead? Yes. No. Maybe. This event, the central tenet of Christianity, is a faith-reinforcer for some and a stumbling block for others. It needn’t be the latter, nor do any of the unbelievable stories of our faith tradition need to get in the way. Imagine a simple faith that looks beyond even the Resurrection, finding the ambiguity in even its message acceptable.

Do you find some of the stories and explanations in the Bible a bit extreme? Take heart. Clear Faith doesn’t need atonement. It doesn’t need an afterlife reward. It doesn’t need an understanding of the Trinity, or even a Jesus any bigger than the one uncovered by Historical Jesus scholars.  Clear Faith is just an unassuming, uncomplicated, uncluttered trust in God.

Which God? Is there even a real God outside our brains? We just don’t know. Stover insists that believing in God is a personal choice, and explains: “To me, God is appropriately regarded as a mystery. Hope. Infinite possibility. Compassion—oneness with all that is. Pure, unlimited surrounding LOVE. God surrounds and dwells within us, and I choose to cherish that belief and let it shape my way of living and being.”

Don’t buy this book looking for originality or deep, theological probing. It’s short and sweet, to the point, and reliant upon the deeper research of other scholars. Stover liberally quotes the writings of Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong, and Robin R. Meyers, so if your favorite Liberal Christian is among this list, you’re in good hands.

This book will resonate with many, many people. It’s possible that some will find it comforting to read, simply to reinforce that they are not alone in their “spiritual-but-not-religious” mindset, but in my opinion the book’s greatest value is as a way for progressive/liberal/SBNR Christians to share their journey with their conservative family. Stover’s approach is not at all heavy-handed but gentle and explanatory, so it’s a simple way of communicating what so many of us feel.

 

Jeremiah 32:27, God can do anything! Except this...

"I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?"

//Omni-everything is our God! Matthew 19:26 says all things are possible with God. Luke 1:37 promises nothing is impossible with God. In today's verse, God himself makes the claim. Well, actually God poses a rhetorical question. He doesn't actually say he can do anything.

Because it turns out one thing is too tough for even God to handle: Chariots of iron in battle.

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron (Judges 1:19).

John 17:3, What is eternal life?

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

//The Greek word aionios appears seventeen times in John’s Gospel, always translated in the King James Version to either “eternal” or “everlasting.” It's a key theme to the Gospel. But what does it really mean?

What it doesn't mean is life in heaven. It's unfortunate that the word John uses over and over has been translated as it has, because the words “eternal” and “everlasting” don’t manage to convey the bliss intended. In actuality, the word speaks not of the quantity of life, but the quality. It means, specifically, “the life in the age to come.” Bible scholars typically retranslate "eternal life" as "life in abundance" or "fullness of life."

This does not mean John denies an afterlife up in heaven, it just means his focus is elsewhere. John never mentions living up in heaven. His concern is that, by knowing God, we will share a richer life on earth.

With that in mind … we’ve just completed the editing stage on my book about John’s Gospel, and we’ll soon be looking for media willing to review! Anybody interested? http://thewayithappened.com/john.shtml

Book review: Faith in the Public Square

by Robert Cornwall

★★★★★

From the introduction: Nearly three decades ago Richard John Neuhaus wrote a book with an arresting title—The Naked Public Square. Neuhaus’ argument was simple—religion is in danger of losing its traditional place in the public square, or rather the public square was in danger of losing the leavening agency of religion.

The title of Cornwall’s new book intrigued me, and the writing didn’t disappoint. How is it that religion remains a constant presence in our public lives, yet is disappearing from public conversation? Robert helps out with this collection of short, two-page essays written for publication in the Lompoc Record (Lompoc, California). I can picture the Record lying open to his column on a Lompoc park bench, two men holding it down between them against the brisk wind. They are reading and discussing the day in 2007 when Congress convened, witnessing several American religious firsts, including the seating of two Buddhists and a Muslim as congressional representatives. Does this mean we’re witnessing the realization of America’s promise as a land of freedom for people of every religious background?

Cornwall’s passions seem to be religion and politics, and he loves writing about where the two overlap (whether beneficially or not), but the topics aren’t limited to this. Toward the end of the collection he strays to other controversial issues such as stem cell research, the source of sexual preference, and “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture). Cornwall’s writing is piercing, yet engrossing because it’s both intelligent and balanced. Of religious differences, he is respectful, sharing his own beliefs without elaboration or evangelism.

I really enjoyed this one. But hopefully I’m allowed one complaint: Guys, when you put together an anthology of writings like this, could you please date each one? Our world is changing so fast, and I’m one of those readers who begins every book by noting the publication date, so I can match the writing to the atmosphere and knowledge of the day.

Philippians 2:5-11, The Divine Christ Hymn

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,

who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,  

but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 

and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  

//What I've just quoted was written by Paul, in a book which is universally considered authentic ... that is, penned by Paul's own hand. He appears to be quoting a hymn of some sort, and in so doing, claiming Jesus' divinity "in the form of God." Some translations even present it as a direct claim: "Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to." - NLT.

But did Paul really think of Jesus in these terms, as God Himself coming down to earth? Or even as a pre-existing, divine being? This is a hotly debated topic; critical scholars are nearly unified in believing that the idea that Jesus was God developed later in Christianity, so how should we interpret this hymn? What does it mean about early Christian beliefs? Earlier even than Paul, who quoted an already-existing source expecting it to be recognized.

There are some problems with the "Jesus is God" interpretation. The text is actually quite clear that Jesus was in the form of God, not God himself. And it is God who exalts Jesus, apparently exalting him higher than he was before ... meaning, Jesus wasn't God beforehand. So what was he? The scholarly opinions are legion.

Many scholars do not think it means Christ existed before birth. They think it is talking about Christ as the "second Adam," who was like the first man, Adam, but who acted very differently. 

The first Adam is made in the image of God (compare to "in the form of God"), and so is the second Adam. The first Adam wanted to be "equal with God," and reached for the fruit of the tree of knowledge that would make him like God. The second Adam, by contrast, denied himself that status, humbly submitting even to death. Therefore, God exalted him to a higher status than before.

Ezekiel 45:18-19, Ezekiel Changes the Law

This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In the first month on the first day you are to take a young bull without defect and purify the sanctuary. The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the upper ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the inner court.

//In these verses, Ezekiel describes the new Temple in God’s glorious new age (which he expects to occur as soon as the Jews are released from captivity in Babylon and allowed to return to Judea), and explains how a young bull is to be sacrificed as a sin offering in the first month of the year (Springtime, on the Jewish calendar). The odd thing about this is that this atonement sacrifice is supposed to be made in the Fall, during the Day of Atonement. Instead, Ezekiel moves the sacrifice to around the time of the Passover celebration. It is as if he merges the Fall and Spring festivals into one, with Passover absorbing the Day of Atonement.

Scholars argue about the reason for Ezekiel’s change of instructions. Some feel it illustrates nothing more than Ezekiel feeling free to creatively describe multiple Old Testament rituals with a single brush stroke. Others note that the instructions for applying the blood of the bull to the “upper ledge” and “gateposts” sounds an awful lot like the instructions God gave Israel for the blood of the lamb at Passover time.

I see the same thing in John’s Gospel. John doesn’t write chronologically, but purposefully tells the story of Jesus’ arrival at Jerusalem over and over, under the banner of different festival themes: The Feast of Booths, Hanukkah, Passover. It’s as if all of the feasts have been merged into one. Why?

Perhaps because nearly every feast has at the core of its tradition an expectation of the Messiah’s arrival. A dream of the Messiah arriving during that feast. But Jesus can’t come during them all, can he? He can only come once.

So, John, and Ezekiel before him, combine the major feasts into one.

Book review: The Time is at Hand

by Jay E. Adams

★★★★

This book is sort of a “recent classic,” first copyrighted in 1966 and reprinted four times since then. It’s a discussion of Bible chronology, leaning heavily upon a historical analysis of the book of Revelation.

Adams is a “realized millennialist,” meaning he believes the 1000-year millennium spoken of in Revelation (an “age” not necessarily meaning precisely 1000 years) has already arrived. It began in early New Testament times, and continues till the present. This is the period in which Satan is bound in chains. “Binding” doesn’t mean total inability, of course, for then one could hardly believe Jesus when he claimed to bind the strong man (Satan).

Now, since Adams is also a post-millennialist, meaning he believes Jesus will arrive after the millennium, he is able to reconcile the fact that Revelation’s horrors mimic precisely the age in which its author lived (the first century) and still look forward to Christ’s second coming. The “real” golden age, with eternal life, is just around the corner. The time is at hand.

I applaud the way Adams takes seriously the references in Revelation to the first century and the urgency of its message. Still, this interpretation always feels to me a little like having your cake and eating it too.

Job 5:17, The Advice of Job's Friends

Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects; Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty.

//Yesterday, I pointed out that the richest, holiest man on earth was not an Israelite but a hated Edomite. His name was Job.

But what about Job’s friends? They arrive to comfort Job in his suffering.

So they sat down with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his grief was very great. –Job 2:13

When they feel it’s appropriate to speak, they tell Job that if he will only recognize his sin and repent of it, God will surely forgive him. Round and round they go for many long chapters as they explore Job’s apparent sin as the reason for his misfortune, while Job insists he has done nothing wrong.

The friends are, in John Dominic Crossan’s words, “Deuteronomic fundamentalists.”* Their certainty about Job’s sin comes direct from the Torah, the law of God:

But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God … Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks … The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have forsaken Me. –Excerpts from Deuteronomy 28

The friends are by-the-book Deuteronomists who believe that God rewards virtue and punishes evil. Job must have sinned; that is why God killed Job’s cattle, his family, his servants.

Of course, we know differently from the story. It turns out the friends are wrong, Deuteronomy is wrong, and though Job is never told the reason for his suffering, everything is restored. Job, the anti-Jew, is in the right.

What is this book doing in our Bible??

[*] see The Power of Parable, by John Dominic Crossan

Job 1:1, Job's Holiness

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job.

//I’ve never been a real big fan of the book of Job, but someday I hope to get in and really study it. I confess, the premise is fascinating. A bit of atmosphere will help explain why Job is considered such a great piece of literature. Bear with me, here.

Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom … "Behold, I will make you small among the nations; You shall be greatly despised. … I will bring you down," says the LORD. "Will I not in that day," says the LORD, "Even destroy the wise men from Edom, And understanding from the mountains of Esau?” –excerpts from Obadiah.

Yes, Edom, the land of Esau, was hated. Guess where Uz, Job’s homeland, was located?

So the subtle introduction to Job contains a kicker, for in God’s own words, “there is none like [Job] on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil.” Job is the greatest man on earth, but he is not a Jew. He is a Gentile. The holiest and richest man on earth is a hated Edomite.

Yeah, sometime I need to get in and really study this book. Maybe today … check my blog tomorrow for more.

Book review: 21st Century Science & Health

by Cheryl Petersen

★★★★

Allow me a few clarifications before I begin this review. Then forgive me for a much longer review than I usually prepare.

[1] This book is about Christian Science (The First Church of Christ, Scientist), not Scientology. Don’t confuse the two! The former was founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879, while Scientology was founded by L. Ron Hubbard in 1953. Sorry, People magazine readers, this will not be a discussion about the divorce of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes (Cruise is a celebrated member of Scientology).

[2] Cheryl Petersen undertakes the ambitious and somewhat frightening task of updating Mary Baker Eddy’s book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, rewriting it in contemporary language. Science and Health is, after all, the “voice of Truth to this age,” containing the full statement of Christian Science and the Science of healing through Mind. I asked Cheryl about her authority to rewrite a religion’s founding document, and she replied with some humility in an email that I will hopefully be able to share in a later post.

[3] My review is neither an endorsement nor condemnation of Christian Science, or of any controversies surrounding its healing practices. I do not have an opinion on Christian Science health care or any other contemporary issue relating to the religion, for I have not studied any statistics or the present-day practice. This is a review of only Petersen’s book.

So what is Christian Science? You may have heard only that it emphasizes healing, and this is not off the mark at all. Indeed, physical healing is inextricably intertwined within the core of the belief system. Christian Science “teachings are confirmed by healing. When, on the strength of these instructions, you are able to banish a severe illness, the cure shows that you understand this teaching and therefore you receive the blessing of Truth.”

And how do Christian Scientists heal? Well, not by slight-of-hand or by human mind over matter. Certainly not by surgery, drugs, or hypnotism. Healing is a matter of convincing the patient—providing a proper scientific argument, if you will—of the reality of Mind and its superiority over the illusion of matter. The cause of all so-called disease is mental. One disease is no more real than another. Mary Baker Eddie states that she never knew a patient who did not recover when the belief in the disease was gone. Quiet the patient’s fears, and show the patient that the conquest over sickness, as well as over sin, depends on mentally destroying all belief in temporal pleasure or pain. If you succeed in wholly removing the fear, your patient is healed.

It may be possible to garner hints about Christian Science beliefs by noting the words that Petersen chooses to capitalize, implying divinity: Science, Life, Soul, Mind, Truth, Love, God, Infinity, Principle. But in each case, the words must be examined carefully in how they are used. The term “Science,” properly understood, refers only to the laws of God and to Spirit’s government of the universe, including all people. Divine Science isn’t connected to what is called the hard or soft sciences (e.g. chemistry, biology, physics, and psychology). Divine Science rises above physical theories, excludes matter, resolves things into thoughts, and replaces the objects of physical sense with spiritual ideas. “Soul” is not an individual entity trapped within your body. It is part of a greater whole. “Life” is, well, where do I begin?

I cannot tell whether Mary Baker Eddy was 100 years ahead of her time or 1700 years behind. In many ways, Christian Science borders on both Gnosticism and New Age, though MBE had heard of neither and would denounce both. She marched to her own drummer, and quite successfully I might add. I think I understand correctly that she imagines humanity on a journey to enlightenment. Today, we eat right and exercise to retain our health, and she considers it foolishness to do otherwise. But we are learning about the living Spirit. Tomorrow, in that perfect day of understanding, we shall neither eat to live nor live to eat. Death will be conquered, eternal life begun, for we will no longer retain the mindset that we must die.

It should be also emphasized that Christian Science builds atop the foundation laid by the Bible. Mary Baker Eddy claims the Bible as her only authority, though her understanding differs from most Christians. Jesus, for example, is not God, but a human being who presented Christ, the true idea of God by healing the sick and the sinner and overcoming the power of death. Says MBE, “I will not lose faith in Christianity, nor will Christianity lose its hold on me.” Indeed, Christ’s resurrection lays the foundation for Divine Healing, for it is the ultimate proof. Jesus did not die, for Spirit is eternal, he merely overcame the illusion of matter. Hidden in the narrow tomb, Jesus remained alive, demonstrating the power of Spirit to overrule mortal materialist perceptions. Here we arrive at that troublesome question again: What is Life? The short answer: “Life is Spirit, never in nor of matter.” Another hint: “You will know Life when you stop knowing time.” Eeek, I better go open my Eastern Meditations book.

MBE reasons that she has proven the ultimate Truth in Divine Science because of her success in healing. The premises of Christian Science, including the unreality of matter and the reality and singularity of the Divine Mind, must be accepted then by deductive reasoning. “We admit the whole, because a part is proved and that part illustrates and proves the entire Principle.”

As to Petersen’s efforts, her book is well-written and captivating, managing to both highlight the origins of a religious movement and strike a chord with my own life and beliefs. I did feel a little frustrated at its redundancy. I think 150 pages could be pulled from the center without losing any substance. This repetition (as intentional as it may be) is what drops my rating from five stars to four. I also do not believe anyone can fully grasp the nature of this religion from a book; it’s unlikely that an outsider trying to understand will be fully sated.  

In closing, I confess I’m no expert on Christian Science though I’ve tried to convey the basics as described herein, so I invite practitioners to correct me where I have misrepresented your teachings! Thank you for sharing, Cheryl!

Nahum 3:19, Two Views of Nineveh

Everyone who hears the news about you claps his hands at your fall, for who has not felt your endless cruelty?

//Sometime when you’re bored, pick up your Bible and read the books of Jonah and Nahum side-by-side. Both of these books concern the fate of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. One is a humanitarian plea to recognize God’s love even for a hated enemy, and the other is a gleeful telling of that enemy’s destruction.

In Jonah, the people of Nineveh believe in God, engage in acts of penance, and repent. God decides to spare the city, proving their repentance to be genuine, and serves as an example for us to love our enemies and recognize the universal nature of God’s own love.

Nahum, however, openly taunts Nineveh, celebrating God’s avenging wrath against them. Nineveh’s destruction is sung in psalm:

“I am against you,” declares the Lord Almighty.

    “I will lift your skirts over your face.

I will show the nations your nakedness

   And the kingdoms your shame.

I will pelt you with filth,

    I will treat you with contempt

   And will make you a spectacle.

All who see you will flee from you and say,

   ‘Nineveh is in ruins—who will mourn for her?’”

Could any two books of the Bible be any more different? Is there any question about differing human motives and emotions in the Bible? This is the sort of stuff that makes the Bible alive to me … its very human fingerprints.

Revelation 1:10, The Lord's Day

On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.

//You may be surprised to know that this verse in Revelation is the only reference in the scripture to The Lord's Day. Most of us read the words without thinking any more about it, and conclude that John writes about seeing his vision on a Sunday.

But the earliest Jewish Christians continued to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath (Saturday). In time, they also began to hold their own gatherings on Sunday, with both Saturday and Sunday holy for a time--not an either/or proposition--but eventually Sunday replaced Saturday as the day of worship. We don't know exactly when Christians began to recognize Sunday as the Lord's Day. Maybe not until nearly 130 CE and then only in the cities of Rome and Alexandria, leaving us unsure how to interpret today's verse.

Adding to the confusion is John's awkward Greek, which sometimes makes translation difficult. Some scholars contest the traditional understanding of this verse, and assert that when John wrote "On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit," he meant "I was caught up in a vision to the coming Day of the Lord."

Nevertheless, it appears likely that this verse played a part in the eventual development of a special day belonging to Jesus. Scholars of Revelation recognize the intense competition in Asia Minor (where Revelation was directed) between Christianity and Roman Emperor worship; just as certain rulers claimed particular days as their own, so too did the Lord Jesus deserve his own day, right? My understanding of the verse is traditional. I think John encouraged setting aside a special day to commemorate Jesus.

Book review: Wisdom and Wonder

by Abraham Kuyper

★★★★★

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) penned this book in 1905, and it later became part of a three-volume set on the topic of Common Grace. This is the first translation into English from the original Dutch.

Kuyper reads the Bible literally, in particular the Garden of Eden and mankind's fall, and ponders some provoking issues about what the Fall meant for the development of science and art. His writing, while dated and in many places relevant only to the most conservative Christian, is intelligent and opinionated, and the translation is elegant. It's a pleasure to read.

Kuyper sees Adam's fall from grace as a major setback in both science and art, and the beginning of human attempts to recapture the beauty of both. Never can we approach what we once shared in paradise, nor can we begin to imagine the beauty of the world to come, but God has been gracious in awarding us at least a little glimpse of the beauty of his creation, through the avenues of science and art.

Both can be misused, of course. It requires a proper Christian outlook to remain on track, lest we fall into the dangers of Darwinian thinking or (shudder) nude modeling. Certainly the charm of this book is its antiquated quaintness, while simultaneously uncovering Kuyper as a profound theologian. The translation is superb, a perfect tone for the discussion.

Whether you are a conservative seeking comfort in old time religion or a historian of post-enlightenment Christianity, this book is a gem.

Mark 14:72, How many times did the rooster crow?

And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

//That’s Mark’s version. Jesus says it’ll crow twice, and it does crow twice.

Mark was the first Gospel written. Matthew and Luke both directly copied many of Mark’s stories, and the evidence seems to be piling up that John, also, had read Mark’s Gospel. Curiously, however, all three of these later Gospels contradict Mark. The cock crows just once in their versions.

So, how many times did the rooster crow? Probably, none. Roosters were not allowed in the city, according to Jewish ritual law. More likely, the Gospels refer to the trumpet call marking the changing of the guard at 3 a.m. This trumpet blast, heard city-wide, was called the cock-crow. All three later Gospel writers correct Mark’s embarrassing misunderstanding, knowing the trumpet blast couldn’t have been heard twice.

Romans 1:3-4, Jesus Becomes God's Son

[C]oncerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.  

//Here's a question that baffled early Christians. At what point did Jesus become God's son?

We all know the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and their claim that God impregnated Mary and conceived a son. Surely that is the moment Jesus became the Son of God?

Another, probably earlier, tradition comes from the book of John. John mentions nothing at all about a virgin birth, and instead tells how Jesus was anointed as the Son of God at his baptism. (Technically, John doesn't mention the baptism itself, but we may infer the event.) So could this be the day? Many early Christians accepted this "adoptionist" explanation and saw nothing heretical in it.

An even earlier tradition is found in Paul's letter to the Romans. In today's verse, Paul states his understanding that Jesus was born of the flesh (of the lineage of King David) and became the Son of God only after the resurrection! Surprisingly, the book of Acts, which was authored by the same person as the Gospel of Luke and its virgin birth story, appears to side with Paul! 

"God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.' And that He raised Him from the dead ..." - Acts 13:32-33

Scholars generally consider this passage in Acts to be a primitive tradition that long predated the day it was copied by Luke. So we have three traditions that show a bit of a progression:

[1] The earliest: Jesus became God's son when resurrected (probably adopted by God and taken home immediately to heaven).

[2] A bit later: Jesus became God's son when anointed by the Spirit at his baptism.

[3] Later still: Jesus is the literal offspring of God and a human woman, and becomes God's son at that point.

Book review: This Is My Body

by Keith A. Giles

★★★★

For ye are the temple of the living God.

What was the temple that Jesus came to establish? It was you and I—the living temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did what David and Solomon and all the rest could never do. He built an acceptable temple for God that was cleansed with His own blood and purified by the Lamb of God.

And God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” -2 Cr. 6:16

This concept forms the basis of Giles’ book, This Is My Body. His emphasis on Christ, particularly the Christ dwelling within, renders today’s clergy (as a class separate from the laity) as a misdirected spinoff from first-century teachings. The early church knew nothing of the clergy class of leader we see today; in the New Testament, every Christian is a minister, everyone a priest. In arguing his case, Giles holds true to the traditionally understood authorship and dating of the New Testament.

Consider the controversy over the Pastoral letters: Timothy I, II, and Titus. Scholars recognize how the teachings of the Pastorals contradict the teachings of other Pauline letters and of the Gospels, addressing the hierarchical needs of the growing church (e.g.: the need for a clergy!), and assume that they are written later; possibly in the early second century. That would mean they are not written by Paul. Giles, however, takes the opposite approach; he takes Pauline authorship for granted, and argues instead that we are wrongly interpreting the meaning of the Pastoral letters. His book contradicts both conservative and liberal thinking, and while Giles would never put it quite this way, he probably comes closer to the message of Jesus than the New Testament writers themselves.

Says Giles, “I believe it’s time the Church went out of business. Close down the bank account, lay off the pastoral staff, cancel the utilities, sell the building, auction off the sound system and the digital projector and turn out the lights.” Time to become the church instead of attending one.


(This book may be purchased at http://wearethetemple.blogspot.com/)

Revelation 2:5, The Church at Ephesus

Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.

//This warning was written to the Church at Ephesus, in what is today West Turkey. Repent, or I will remove your lampstand.

By the early second century, Ephesus had garnered a reputation as a great example of Christian faith. It held a position of pre-eminence for centuries, a shining light, a glorious lampstand. One of the great fifth-century church councils even met there (431 CE).

But today, there exists not a single Christian church in Ephesus. The city is a broken-down shadow of what it once was. What happened?

Ezekiel 43:7, Ezekiel's Temple Dream

He said: "Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites forever….”

//In today’s verse, God speaks to Ezekiel and tells him that a new Temple must be built as his holy house. God dictates to Ezekiel several chapters of precise building instructions, describing a magnificent picture of a second Temple.

Ezekiel was not the only one to dream of a second Temple. Here is Isaiah’s promise, written much earlier, from which Ezekiel surely finds inspiration.

In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it.

This will be quite a thing, won’t it? Except for one thing. Ezekiel, an “exile prophet” (he prophesied during the period of time the Jews spent in exile in Babylon) was describing the day when the Jews would be released from bondage, and allowed to travel back to their homeland. When that day came, a magnificent second Temple would be erected, and God would dwell there with his people forever.

Then the day came. Israel was allowed to go home, and the second Temple construction began. But it was such a poor, pathetic attempt that the elders, those who remembered the glory of Solomon’s temple, sat and cried. No way would God come and dwell there forever! They scanned the horizon for a descendant of King David to arrive and rule their new kingdom, but he never arrived. For hundreds of years the Jewish nation floundered, and eventually King Herod the Great began construction on a newer, grander Temple for the Jews, resurrecting the dream of a Davidic Messiah who would arrive and rule. But again the dream dissipated. Before the Temple was finished, in 70 A.D., it was destroyed by the Romans.

Two thousand years later, many people point to the prophecies that didn’t pan out and continue to dream of yet another Temple.

Book review: A Simpler Faith

by Ed Galisewski

★★★★

Life is a journey, and author Ed Galisewski has been taking some big steps of late. He writes not as a theologian, but as an everyday guy, a “Joe Palooka” with a “view from the pew.” He tells, earnestly and frankly, about his trek away from denominationalism and where he is at on that journey. We need a simpler faith, he insists, brushing away all the dross until we’re back to the basics.

To be honest, Ed is convinced about many things that I am not. He claims to be a Christian, I claim to be a Christian, yet we don’t agree on even the basics. Here’s the funny thing: I can’t tell whether I’m ahead of Ed on the journey or whether he’s ahead of me! Maybe we’re just on different journeys.

Regardless, I enjoyed the glimpse at another man’s struggle with church, even as I realize I can’t relate to the direction the journey has carried Ed. His new opinion of how to get back to basics means stripping back to C-S-G … Creator, Savior, Guide (you may note the relation to the persons of the Trinity). Although he presents this as the solution to everyone’s church problems, this strategy doesn’t quite work for me. I stand in awe at the wonder of life and the universe, yet the role of a creator in all this remains pure speculation in my mind. I stand in awe at the unselfish sacrifice Jesus made, yet I don’t share Ed’s view of what we need to be saved from. He mentions talking with a rabbi and being astonished that this rabbi felt no need for a savior.  As a conservative Christian, Galisewski naturally thinks that everybody recognizes themselves as a horrible sinner in need of being saved.  As an example, at least three times, Galisewski bemoans the way men’s minds work, once making reference to a study that shows that men’s thoughts turn to sex about 30 or 40 times an hour. Oh, what evil beings we are for harboring within us that incredible, bewildering, life-giving chemical reaction that transformed homo sapiens into an evolutionary success! We shouldn’t be celebrating the miracle of life, we should be condemning it! Save us from this life-giving evil!

OK, I’m being dramatic, but the point is, Christians won’t see eye-to-eye on even what Galisewski considers “the basics” … and we shouldn’t! We are complex, thinking, environmentally-driven individuals with differing spiritual needs, so Ed’s solution isn’t universal, but it IS a good one! Ed advises taking a break from our church, stepping outside its “business plan” to think things through. It’s a scary thing to do … questioning long-held traditions and perhaps even embracing other rituals and worship atmospheres, but he’s surely right that this will contribute to our spiritual growth. Ed despises exclusivity, encouraging Christians to see across denominational lines.

Here’s the bottom line: While the differences of opinion between Ed and I are legion, he appeals to me as a person I would very much enjoy conversing with about Christianity. His approach is respectful and humble, and he and I could learn from one another. What we have within these pages is an everyman’s sincere struggle to be more Godly. Read his book for an insight into what worked for one man and his closest friends.

2 Kings 7:1-2, So cheap it's inedible?

Elisha said, "Hear the word of the LORD. This is what the LORD says: About this time tomorrow, a seah of flour will sell for a shekel and two seahs of barley for a shekel at the gate of Samaria." The officer on whose arm the king was leaning said to the man of God, "Look, even if the LORD should open the floodgates of the heavens, could this happen?" "You will see it with your own eyes," answered Elisha, "but you will not eat any of it!"

//Here’s the story of today’s verse. The Syrian army had surrounded the city of Samaria, and its inhabitants were starving. But Elisha the prophet encouraged the king, promising that tomorrow food would become so plentiful that it would be sold at cheap prices.

At this, the king’s officer scoffed, saying the only way that could happen is if food rained down from heaven! To which Elisha retorted, you’ll see it with your own eyes, but you won’t eat any!

If the officer’s stomach weren’t rumbling, I’m sure his eyes would be rolling. Why wouldn’t he eat any if there was plenty?

The next day, some mysterious loud noises startled the Assyrian army, and they scuttled off, afraid for their lives. A few adventurous lepers wandered into the now-empty Assyrian camp, and after eating their fill, they came back to the city to report what they found. So the king stationed his officer, the scoffing one, at the gate of the camp to supervise. At which point, the starving city-dwellers stampeded toward the food, trampling and killing the officer.

Elisha was right. Moral: don’t mock God’s prophet.

Mark 2:27-28, Lord of the Sabbath

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

//These words were spoken by Jesus to explain why his disciples were eating grain on the Sabbath. But the wording makes no sense. If the Sabbath is made for man, how does that imply that the Son of Man (e.g.: Jesus) is Lord of the Sabbath? What does this have to do with Jesus, anyway? It wasn't Jesus who was eating the grain.

The mystery is solved when we take this verse and translate it back to Aramaic. On the assumption that these are truly words that Jesus spoke, we should listen to the way it sounds in the language Jesus spoke.

It turns out that Aramaic uses the same word for "man" as it does for "son of man." It's the word "barnash." The original saying, from the lips of Jesus, would then have been "The Sabbath was made for barnash, not barnash for the Sabbath. Therefore, barnash is lord even of the Sabbath." Now replace barnash with the word man, and read it again.

When the saying was written in Greek, however, the author apparently decided to turn it into a statement about Jesus, not about mankind. It became the Son of Man rules over the Sabbath.

Leviticus 19:28, No tattoos allowed

You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD.

//Is this verse saying God doesn’t want you to tattoo your body? Many Christians think so, and it does read rather straight-forwardly. But why does God care?

God cares because that’s what Israel’s enemies—the Canaanites—did in their cultic funeral practices. They cut their hair, and lacerated and tattooed their bodies, all in an attempt to ward off the departing spirit by disguising themselves so they wouldn’t be recognized. God’s instruction continues:

You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.

But does this have anything to do with today’s time? I suggest this compromise: Go ahead and ink up your biceps, but wear a nametag to the funeral parlor.