Douglas Jacoby Podcast

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Suzanne Collins' trilogy

• The Hunger Games
• Catching Fire
• Mockingjay

About Panem

• Panis et circenses (Latin for bread and circuses), coined by Juvenal, c.100 AD. Note: circuses refer to (extremely violent) chariot races, gladiatorial spectacles, and so forth. Iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses (Satire 10.77–81).
• The parallel between Panem and the ancient Roman Empire, which controlled the masses through bread and circuses, is thus made explicit.
• Protagonist: Katniss Everdeen. Antagonist: President Snow.

10 Biblical themes
 

• Freedom
• Peace. This is the way of the Lord, not war. What sort of society finds violence amusing?
• Hope
• Vanity: the shallowness of the masses, as well as of the powers-that-be. This is biblical: truth exposes the manipulation, hypocrisy, and self-interest of human power structures.
• Social justice
• Compassion: action, not just feeling.
• Sacrificial love (Katniss takes the place of her sister Prim).
• Leadership (though the protagonist is more of a Moses figure than a Christ figure)
• The need to be engaged, not withdrawing emotionally but staying in the fight.
• Minor biblical allusions (e.g. twelve districts, or thirteen minus one)

Mini-article in Christianity Today (Christ in the Hunger Games, September 2012, p.86)

"When The Hunger Games released to theaters in March, many dismissed it--and the popular book trilogy before it--as a grisly story about "kids killing kids." But the books, and the film... are so much more. Set in a post-apocalyptic future, the stories are a scathing--but engaging--social commentary,decrying not only violence but human trafficking, totalitarianism, and the unchecked power of evil. But there's also sacrificial love, mercy, hope, and redemption.

"For Christians, there are biblical parallels, especially in Peeta Mellark, a key character who consistently displays unconditional love; he's even willing to die for a friend. A baker's son, a young Peeta risks his well-being to give a starving girl the gift of bread. Later, as a teen, he risks his life to save the one he loves. In one scene, he takes a wound that was meant for another, then "buries" himself in the ground to hide. Three days later--imagery alert!--Peeta emerges from a cave with renewed vigor and hope. The film is rich with discussion fodder for discerning families with older children." --Mark Moring, CT senior associate editor

An anti-war piece?

• War is not glorified; death is tragic, people count. One can make a strong case that The Hunger Games is an anti-war polemic.
• "I [Katniss] no longer feel any allegiance to these monsters called human beings... Because something is significantly wrong with a creature that sacrifices its children's lives to settle its differences. You can spin it anyway you like.... But in the end, who does it benefit? No one. The truth is, it benefits no one to live in a world where these things happen."—Mockingjay, p. 377.

Why you should watch/read The Hunger Games

• To understand what younger people are being exposed to. This is vital if you work with youth ministry, or are a parent or grandparent. With 26 million copies in print (as of May 2013), how can we afford to ignore it?
• It's an easy conversation starter for evangelism.
• It's captivating, and the message is worth thinking about.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

To listen to a biblical exploration of Jane Austen's classic Pride and Prejudice, click on the link. I hope you'll enjoy my short podcast (14 minutes).

Note: If you haven't read the novel, or watched any of the various film productions of the book, you will probably want to skip this podcast.

Themes commented upon: human nature, truth-telling, judging, conceit, parenting, characters, manners, conceit, romance, change... Scripture referred to in the podcast: Ephesians 4:1-2, 15, 15; 6:4;  Matthew 7:1-5; Romans 2:1ff; James 1:19, 2:1-3; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 2 Timothy 3:7; 1 Samuel 16:7.

A few 19th century novels I have read recently and can recommend: Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo; Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities; Victor Hugo, Les Misérables.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Christian should be engaging culture

• Divergent is the first novel in Veronica Roth's trilogy: Divergent (2011), Insurgent (2012), Allegiant (2013).
• Although it is not an explicitly Christian book, in the acknowledgments Roth writes, "Thank you, God, for your Son, and for blessing me beyond comprehension..." The author is inviting us to think biblically about the important themes treated in her novel.
• Thinking Christians need to engage culture. This means we need to rise above the level of mere entertainment. Processing movies, books, TV series, music etc. theologically will enable us to enter into productive conversations.

The appeal of Divergent:

• The younger generation (especially adolescents). Yet whatever your age category, all of us should strive for youthful vigor.  As the scriptures say, the righteous will continue to bear fruit even in old age (Psalm 92:14).
• Those who fear social rejection.
• All who feel pressure to fit into a niche, a pre-assigned category, a pigeonhole.
• Those who are nervous about the emergence of a totalitarian state.

A sketch of society in post-apocalypse Chicago:

• Factions
  • Abnegation
  • Amity
  • Candor
  • Dauntless
  • Erudite
• The factionless
• The divergent
• Slogan: "Faction before blood"

Spiritual messages in Divergent:

1. Love is more valuable than mere knowledge (1 Corinthians 8:1).
2. Social pressures are real and strong. The world says "conform" (Romans 12:2). Yet pressure can bring out the best in us. Moreover, we are supposed to conform -- to the character of Christ (Romans 8:29; Philippians 3:10).
3. Keep a firm grasp on reality (1 Samuel 10:22; Acts 26:25).
4. Beware selfish ambition (Galatians 5:21; James 3:16; 3 John 9).
5. Don't just follow the crowd (Exodus 23:2; Mark 15:15; Acts 19:32).
6. Face yours fears; don't give in to them (Joshua 1:9; Psalm 27:1; John 14:27).
7. Life an adventure (dauntless). Deny self (abnegation). Speak the truth (candor) in love (amity). Learn all you can (erudite), and let all these virtues lead to being more and more like Christ (Galatians 5:22-23; 2 Peter 1:3-11).
8. Yet don't be satisfied with only one area of strength. Strive for all the spiritual virtues (2 Corinthians 4:16; Philippians 3:10-14).
9. Beware the narcissism inherent in celebrating self.  The "me generation" has become the entitled generation. Although we shouldn't fear being different (diverging), we should never diverge from the Lord's morals and standards for our lives. Rather, our lives should converge on the life of the One who lived the perfect life.
10. Our true hero is perfectly balanced.  Tris is admirable because she embodies a blend of selflessness, courage, and intelligence -- as does Jesus. Yet even Tris falls short. But keep the amity and the candor, and every other spiritual virtue, and we will be following Christ. The film points to Christ -- even if "through a glass, darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV).

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Download the PDF of the notes for this podcast.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

This podcast is a book review, examining Todd Burpo's Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010), 162 pp.

Why the story seems genuine
The credibility of the author is enhanced for three reasons.
1. The author (Colton Burpo's father) is a Christian pastor.
2. The writer is highly personable, and shares a lot from his own life.
3. He repeatedly emphasizes how he and his wife tried not to lead their little boy on--not to put words in his mouth.

Moreover, this is a subject nearly everyone is interested in.
1. The story resonates with popular culture: spiritual experiences are in, even if (for many) church and doctrine are out.
2. It's an easy read-- you can finish in a sitting.

The medical context of the “visit to heaven”
62 - During emergency appendix surgery the boy had an unusual experience, while under anesthesia. The visit lasted 3 minutes, according to the little boy, into which it sounds like a day’s activities were crammed.
78 - He did not die

Miraculous knowledge?
61 - He had knowledge of his parents praying for him, and of his mother being on the telephone, and their  being in separate rooms. He rose above his body – a common experience during surgeries and near-death experiences.
63 - Jesus had a rainbow horse. 65 - Jesus wore white clothes and a purple sash. 67 - There were red marks on his feet and palms. 145 - The boy later points out Jesus in a sketch by Akiane Kramarik, Prince of Peace (73). 73 - Jesus has light eyes and streaks in his hair, which appears to be permed (!).
He was with Jesus, whom he recognized, as well as the father (who was “really big”) and even the Holy Spirit. Jesus loves the little children.

72 - There were many other humans in heaven, esp. children, many of whom Colton later named. But what about John 3:13? 73-74 - The dead (humans) sport wings and halos – and sounds like something out of a children’s book, like The Littlest Angel. There are a few other questionable statements, biblically speaking, such as a literal battle of Armageddon.

86 - He saw his deceased grandfather, though as a younger man. (This man had died before Colton was born.) 123 - Later recognized him in a picture of him in his 30s – did not recognize him in later pictures (died in early 60s). 90 - Colton's mother was shocked, because she has not thought her father would be in heaven. He'd apparently "accepted Christ" 28 years before his death, but did not tell his family members.

94 - The boy talks to his dead sister (fetus of 2 months).This really tugs on the heartstrings of the reader (and the boy’s mother). See also 96, 128-129.

100 - There are literal thrones. 101 - Jesus on the right side of God, the archangel Gabriel on the left.

105 - Heaven is the New Jerusalem of Revelation.

126 - He sees power shooting down on his father when he preaches (Spirit) – like the common evangelical notion of being “anointed” by the Spirit whenever a minister preaches the word of God.

133 - Angels carry swords in heaven.
139 - The battle of Armageddon is apparently to be fought with swords and bows & arrows (little boys’ toys?).
152 - There are dogs in heaven.

Explainable?
It's easy to rationalize most of the details. Even the theology: Trinitarian God, for example. A nearly-four-year-old would have heard a great deal of talk about God and the Bible. It's not so easy to account for the details of miscarried sister and grandfather, assuming they are not fictive or exaggerated. Yet we weigh the work as a whole. We are not required to accept everything in the book just because one or two details cannot be explained away.

Why the book fails to persuade (me)
1. All the details sound like they’ve come from children’s Sunday school pictures. The story supports evangelical theology – e.g. immediate transport to heaven, literal battle of Armageddon, taking the picture of the New Jerusalem to be heaven, conversion through “accepting Christ” – not likely to appeal so strongly to other Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, or non-denominational Christians.
2. The account flatly contradicts the testimony of the Old and New Testament and the early Christian writers. 80 Paul went to heaven – but in 2 Cor 12 Paul goes to paradise. Not a single detail of the experience is related, only its ineffability. Yet Colton Burpo found no trouble describing everything he saw, which makes the passage his father cites as a parallel disconfirm his son’s experience.
3. 88 - The author admits a history of mental illness in the family (his father). Perhaps this is relevant.
4. Although it's certainly a very interesting story, in many places feels hokey

Two experts weigh in
David Bercot (a personal friend and expert on early Christianity):
a. This account contradicts the evidence of the early church.
b. Why didn't Lazarus ever say anything about this death experience (John 11)?
c. Hallucinations are not uncommon when people are under anesthesia.
d. In the past there have been clear instances of fraud, too, though this doesn’t seem to be a case of that.

Gary Habermas (apologist, historian, philosopher of religion), private correspondence:
“I don't say we know exactly where NDErs may go, heaven or otherwise.  But there is an incredible amount of evidence that something objective is happening.”

Conclusion
Something happened, and I have no desire to explain it all away, but the details don’t correspond particularly well with the Bible. Despite the often expressed opinions of the pastor-father, I am afraid the account does not impress me as celestial. Whatever little Colton experienced, it was not the “visit to heaven.”

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Ron Moseley’s book, Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church (Clarksville, Maryland: Messianic Jewish Publishers, 1996) is an interesting read. I have met representatives of this movement before, and read a number of their books, especially once I came into direct personal contact with this school of thought on my first trip to Israel. This school of thought is well described by the term Messianic Judaism, a movement within evangelical Christianity that has been in motion for half a century now. This review is not only a critique of Moseley's book, but also a challenge to the Messianic movement as a whole.

Excellent
Many things Moseley and his associates emphasize are correct -- even excellent.

• Jesus and Paul were Jews. Most Bible readers forget this, and this seriously affects their ability to interpret the scriptures.
•  
• There's great benefit in setting aside time for study, worship, and cultivating an awe of God (p.42). Yet this is no proof that we need to observe the Jewish calendar. Slowing down and stopping normal work one day a week, attending seminars; going on retreats, having daily devotional times, and so on can serve this purpose equally well.
•  
• The Jewish background of NT teaching is brought to light, often in a captivating way.
• The Pharisees’ teaching was similar to Jesus’ (p.91). I might go even further: if we were to compare our own spiritual heritage to the many Jewish sects active in the first century, theirs is unquestionably the group with which we have most in common.

Possibly correct
A number of his ideas may be on track, but lack support. I think it is fine for Bible teacher to share his ideas, but only with a confidence in proportion to the evidence itself. This attitude Moseley repeatedly fails to exhibit.

• His comments on the tzitzit may be right (p.21), though it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Yet I like this view.
•  
• John hesitates to enter Jesus’ tomb because of his association with the high priestly family (pp.24-25). Could be. But then there are other reasons for which he didn’t enter (fear, deference to Peter, being out of breath…).
•  
• Peter chopped off Malchus’ ear to disqualify him for the priesthood, or to insult the priesthood of Caiaphas (p.25). This strikes me as speculative, though I did mention the possibility in my (premium) podcast on Malchus. I think it is more likely Peter was trying to kill Malchus than maim him.
•  
• Matthew 8:21-22 may refer to secondary burial (pp.27-28). I am familiar with the practice of secondary interment, and have shown ossuaries on many of my tours. Yet such an understanding of Jesus’ words does not significantly affect the point Jesus is making, that we are to let nothing, even family obligations, come between us and him.
•  
• He claims that coins falling into the temple collection containers in effect “sounded the trumpet” (p.28). Yet what is the reference? This sounds like pure speculation. There are many such claims in this book.
•  
• "Leaven” means giving God your second best (p.110). To prove this, he cites only a secondary source; there is no proof for this assertion. The problem with the teaching of the Pharisees was that it could spread so far and affect so many, not that it was second best. RM’s interpretation weakens the point Jesus and Paul make when they resort to this metaphor in their teaching.

Definitely wrong
Yet the patent errors in the book are often not minor, but major.

• Moseley claims that the “new covenant” is not better than the old, but only an extension of it, or a call to observe it (pp.36, 57). That is certainly not how I and Bible scholars read Jeremiah 31! The Hebrew writer does not put down the old covenant – the fault lay with the people (Hebrews 8) – but he definitely says the new is better.
•  
• Moseley’s group believes that the NT was written in Hebrew, yet I am aware of no evidence. Even among early Christians, the only tradition circulating of which I am aware is that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (the view of Papias). I believe Semitic thought patterns are discernible in most of the documents of the Greek NT, and without doubt Jesus taught primarily in the language of the people of Palestine, but there is not a shred of manuscript evidence for an original Hebrew NT. 
   
•  
• Luke 16:16, commenting on the Law being proclaimed until John, is claimed by Moseley not to indicate any fundamental shift vis-à-vis the Torah (p.41). Moseley is correct that we are under grace and still obligated to obey God’s laws; Protestant Bible teachers often stumble over that one, falsely pitting Paul against James, for example. Yet there is more than one way that the Law can remain the word of God for us. I would put it this way. For the ancient Jews, the Torah was the word of God and the law of God; for us, the Torah is still the word of God, yet not the law.
•  
• “Replacement theology” makes its first appearance 160 AD, with Justin Martyr (p.60). What about Matthew 21:43? Here Jesus says the kingdom will be taken away from the Jews.
• The moral principles of Torah still apply today (p.50). Please listen to hear my series (“Night of Redemption: A Study of Exodus,” October 2011). We are called to go well beyond the moral level of the Jews. There is a trajectory in the Bible, from paganism to Judaism, and from Judaism to Christianity. The law leads us to Christ, after which point we are mature enough no longer to need it (Galatians 3:21-26). One obvious example is how we treat our enemies. While there are parts of the OT where grace is shown to enemies, in other parts the Jews are told to kill them, even to exterminate them without mercy. Jesus raises the bar. No longer are we permitted to kill, take revenge, or even resist the evil person. How to implement Jesus’ teaching in Matthew (also Paul’s in Romans 12) may be difficult, yet that does not entitle us to ignore it.
•  
• Since the Torah was an “everlasting covenant”, it still applies today (p.62). This view shows a lack of understanding of Hebrew idiom, which is unfortunate for one who promotes himself as an expert. Here let me share an excerpt from my paper on Terminal Punishment, which I believe is germane. “We have to let the Bible define its terms... [T]here are a number of scriptures where words such as 'forever,' 'eternal,' and 'everlasting' do not entail a sense of infinite duration. For example, the following list is based (only) on the Greek root aion*, which appears in the LXX and the NT numerous times, with the general sense of (world) age, forever, always, eternity, etc. In none of the following cases does the word aion* bear the sense of infinite eternity. [Whether for the Greek aionios, the Hebrew ‘olam, or the Latin aeternalis, the point is that 'forever' isn’t always literally forever, at least in Hebrew thought.]
  • Genesis 6:4—'Men of old' (giants/ungodly persons/fallen ones/sons of Cain) did not live infinitely.
  • Jeremiah 25:12—Destruction of Babylon (though not literally destroyed)
  • Genesis 9:12—Perpetual generations
  • Exodus 21:6—The man or woman would become one’s servant'“forever' (!)
  • Leviticus 25:34—Perpetual possession of fields
  • Deuteronomy 23:3—“Forever” means the tenth generation
  • 1 Samuel 2:22—Young Samuel was to serve at the house of the Lord 'forever'
  • 1 Chronicles 16:5—'Forever' ~ 1000 generations—also Psalm 105:8
  • Ezra 4:15, 19—Israelites had been 'eternally' resisting political domination
  • Psalm 24:7—'Ancient' doors
  • Proverbs 22:28—'Ancient' boundary stone
  • Jonah 2:6—The prophet was confined in (the fish) 'forever'"
•  
• Moseley claims that “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17-19 means to correctly teach (p.64). Yet when prophecies are fulfilled, they are not merely “correctly taught.” Rather, their words come true, or a deeper parallelism becomes manifest. “Out of Egypt I called my Son” (Matthew 2:15, quoting Hosea 11:1) is fulfilled when Jesus’ family returns from Egypt. When Jesus fulfills Psalm 22, Psalm 69, Isaiah 53, and so forth, he is not “correctly teaching” them—though he may have—but rather bringing to pass the plan of God, and bringing to light the truth of God, in accordance with what had previously been written.
•  
• Christians knelt for prayer, so in reaction the Jews stood (p.60). The ancient literary and archaeological evidence refutes this claim. The preferred position of the early Christians was standing. Moreover, the orans (plural orantes) is well known from ancient art.
•  
• The ethical requirements of the OT are the same as those of the NT (p.70). Not so, as I mentioned above in my comment on warfare. Back when we lived in the DC area, I pursued this notion, and wanted to include it in my part of the DPI book on the Sermon on the Mount. Tom Jones and Gordon Ferguson shot me down—and I’m glad they did. Back then I was trying too hard to find in the old law justification for many current practices. The point: between the covenants there is not only continuity, but also a radical discontinuity.
• Certain parts of the law were to be kept by Gentiles (all of it by Jews), in effect creating two levels or standards of commitment (p.79). There is no evidence that Gentiles could be saved through part of the covenant! RM’s exegesis of Acts 15 is questionable. Then he claims to have found, out of the traditional total 613 laws in the Torah, many of which still apply to Gentiles (33 positive commands and 135 prohibitions). He overreaches. Let me give two examples. We are to show reverence when enter the house of worship (Leviticus 19:30). I’m all for that, but in Christianity there is no church building (originally). He also states that Deuteronomy 24:15 requires employers to pay workers their wages when the job is done. Yet the passage refers to daily wages, not payment for completing a job. In short, Moseley’s method smacks of arbitrariness.
•  
• In connection with the Feast of Tabernacles, rituals involving water and light had been neglected (p.135). Moseley says that this was part of the ceremonial law. There’s only one problem: it’s nowhere in the OT!
•  
• Acts 2:38 refers to Gentile baptism (p.143). Proponents of another eccentric view teach that Gentiles were to be saved by faith alone, and Acts 2:38 baptism was only for the first generation of Jewish converts. In Acts 2:39 the phrase “those who are far off” refers to Gentiles (not the distant descendants of the audience), a point illustrated in such passages as Ephesians 2:17. RM’s understanding of conversion is lacking.
•  
• The Messianic movement often claims that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. On this assumption, they rely on a reconstructed Semitic text of the NT, even though no such ancient manuscripts have survived. Claiming that the Greek NT is less accurate than the "lost" [and hypothetical] Semitic original, they dismiss verses that are problematic for their position. Be aware that no evidence exists for an original "Hebrew Testament." This is pure conjecture.

Overstated
There were some points I wasn’t sure which category to place in. They contained some truth, but were pushed too far. Maybe these should be listed under a “maybe correct” heading, but I chose to list them separately.

• Augustine championed Marcion (p.40). Augustine (354-430 AD) would have vigorously protested this allegation! Marcion  (c.140 AD) rejected the OT completely; Augustine relied heavily it as he promoted his relatively novel ideas, such as original sin and Christian military service.
•  
• Paul did not intend Greek readers to interpret nomos (law) in the normal way (p.59). It is true that we must discern whether the word means law (generally), the Law of Moses (which is both law in the common sense and Torah in the sense of instruction [<yarah], or principle. Yet to assume that his Greek-speaking letter-readers (and –listeners) would grasp the Hebraic nuance without specific instruction is wishful on Moseley’s part.
•  
• 2 Corinthians 5:17 referred to conversion to Judaism (p.126). Even if it was once used that way, this is not the way Paul is using it here. Earlier in the letter he’d said that a veil hangs over the eyes of the Jews. If anything, Paul is calling people not to be taken in by the specious arguments of his opponents. RM’s view also ignores the eschatological dimension of Paul’s teaching. We participate in the age to come—the new creation—when we are created anew in the image of our Creator.
•  
• We cannot read, understand, or expound the Bible unless we become Jews (p.160). I guess we’re all in trouble.

I have sought Moseley out on the web. One link I found especially useful, as it shows us how others have received this eccentric fringe position.

Conclusion
Moseley is certainly right to point us to the Jewish origins of Christianity. In my own teaching I often emphasize that the first generation of Christians leaders were predominantly Jewish; that every apostle was Jewish; and even that Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Yet, as I have tried to make clear, he grossly overstates his case, is careless in his use of sources, and at many points shows that he does not grasp what was radically new in Yeshua’s teaching. Further, the horrific proofreading of the book (it is fraught with jarring errors) does not do his position any favors.

This "messianic" teaching has gained traction in many churches worldwide. Why is this so? One suspects it is not only because it is interesting, illuminating many facets of scripture that are difficult to understand without background information or training in theology. Given the generally low quality of preaching and teaching (meaty, biblical exposition), it is not surprising that many find this alternative to be far more compelling. Where the word is not carefully expounded, ground is being prepared for heterodox teachers. As Paul points out to Timothy, "Certain persons... have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions" (1 Timothy 1:6-7).

Further study:

• Article on Velvet Elvis (Rob Bell's book).
• Article on Follow the Rabbi (by Ray Vander Laan)
• If you've never read a good book on biblical interpretation, try Fee & Stuart's classic work.
• The two premium podcasts on Sabbath and Holiness.
• Audio series on Exodus, including material on the applicability of the law today, may also be helpful.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

The book critiqued in this podcast is Through the Eye of the Needle: The Doctrine of Non-Accumulation, by Roger Hertzler.

The basic idea

• Our society and the church are materialistic.
• Christians have ignored the clear teaching of Christ that we are not to store up treasure on earth (Matthew 6:19-21).
• "Christ says that nothing on earth has any real value except that which can be converted into Heavenly treasure before we die" (77).

What's helpful:

• Indeed, the Bible teaches that we are to provide financially for the generation behind us, not the generation following. (That is, we are to take care of our elderly parents, not leave an inheritance for our [often] adult children.) The greatest legacy we can leave them is spiritual, and in fact we may be hurting them if the most significant thing we leave them is our money (56). However, see Proverbs 13:22 and 2 Corinthians 12:14.
• Older people will have no problem giving away their money and possessions when they know that the rest of the church will provide for them.
• The teaching of the church in the Patristic era, for example: "How can they follow Christ, who are held back by the chain of their wealth? . . . They think that they possess, but they are possessed instead. They are the bondslaves of their money, not the lords of their money. They are slaves of their profit" [Cyprian, c. 250 AD). While some of the views of the 2nd and 3rd century church go beyond the teachings of Jesus (usually in the direction of strictness), the spirit of their radical discipleship is evident.
• From Hertzler's chapter entitled "An Exchange of Values":
  "... [The] enemy is “a wrong value system.” It is a value system that tells us the things of this world have genuine value (as opposed to being worthless). It tells us that having much of this world’s wealth is somehow better than having little of it. None of us are exempt from the effects of this erroneous value system... The world says that stocks, bonds, gold coins, land, and savings accounts have real value. Christ says that nothing on earth has any real value except that which can be converted into Heavenly treasure before we die. The world says that financial security is something we all should strive to achieve. Christ says that financial security is something that will destroy our faith and steal our love. The world says that it is honorable to leave your children financially well off. Christ says that such a move would endanger their souls, because a rich person will hardly enter the kingdom of God... If you can completely internalize this upside-down value system, it will revolutionize your life. That which you used to think was important will now seem trivial. Your passion will become the kingdom of God..."
• There is not doubt that Jesus warned us in the strongest possible terms of the potential of wealth to blind, numb, and choke us (Luke 8:7,14; Revelation 3:14-19).

What seems off-base:
 

• Biblical interpretation
  • Dismisses Mark 14:3-9 in passing without dealing with the fact that the actions of the woman in anointing Jesus' feet were, by the author's criteria, wasteful (60). After all, hadn't Jesus taught us to sell our possessions and give to the poor (the heart of Judas' objection [ Mark 14:5; John 12:6])?
  • Little flock of Luke 12:33 -- apostles or all Christians (59)? How can we discern who Jesus is referring to? (I admit it seems to me this is for all Christians, but even then the passage has to be interpreted.)
  • The Parable of the Talents is exegeted carelessly, even though the author's conclusions seem on track (49). This does not inspire confidence in his method.
  • Zacchaeus appears in a note, but nothing in the body of the book explores this man, perhaps because his example does not support Hertzler's thesis (102).
• Unduly radical implementation?
  • Wesley used his own life as an example: “I gain all I can” in profitable labor; “I save all I can” by frugal living; and “by giving all I can, I am effectually secured from ‘laying up treasures on earth.’” These were no idle boasts: As Wesley’s royalty earnings grew, his self-imposed annual personal budget stayed at 30 pounds, until 98% of his income was given away. He lived up to his promise that “If I leave behind me ten pounds . . . you and all mankind bear witness against me that ‘I lived and died a thief and a robber’” (67).
  • Advice [for Americans]:
    • Clean out your retirement accounts (80). Give up your financial goals. Join a church that teaches and practices the doctrine of non-accumulation (82). If you haven't been giving at all, start immediately with a tithe (10%), whether you think you can afford it or not. And many other pieces of advice... (83)
    • Okay to keep $20,000 in the bank if you are "a business owner who needs to make payroll every two weeks," but wrong for "a laborer who is just trying to prepare for a 'rainy day'" (81).
    • I think such advice contradicts the NT teaching that we should aim to do something useful with our hands so that we may give to those in need. Earning more you are able to help more; this much seems obvious. And allowing your money to grow increases your ability to give.
    • Distinction between tools and investments, but discerning the difference is somewhat arbitrary. "... at a minimum, Jesus' command to 'sell and give' applies to those assets that qualify as investments."
  • Does not take culture sufficiently into account.
    • Everyone accumulates, even Hertzler. The line between accumulation and non-accumulation is not always obvious.
    • Reminds me of those who push a tithe on gross income. Sounds like a great idea, but how can it be implemented across the board?
    • Are we to strive to recreate the standard of living of the first-century Mediterranean world?

Conclusion

• The book serves a valuable purpose: making us think about the biblical teaching on possessions.
• Yet it is simplistic, ill-suited to the real world. Moreover, it over-interprets the teachings of Christ.
• Perhaps rather than focusing on the negative (non-accumulation), we should emphasize the positive qualities I am sure are behind Hertzler's thesis: generosity, hospitality, sacrifice, mercy. For God loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:6).
• No one on his death-bed laments, "How I wished I had made more money." Death, the great leveler, confronts all of us with the truth (see Psalm 49). Rather, people say, "How I wished I'd spent more time with my loved ones... I should have lived my life in the light of eternity." For reminding us of the worthlessness of human wealth in the light of eternity, Hertzler does us a great service.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

• Avatar is a term from Hindu theology, though it is also common in computer and virtual reality applications. Click here for the origins of the word.
• "Jake" visits Pandora through an avatar, a 10-foot tall blue-skinned alien, though in fact it is Jake and his American friends who are the real aliens! The plot centers around the exploitation of a pristine planet by Americans, and how their efforts are ultimately thwarted, but only after they have brought tremendous destruction.

What was cool

• Extremely visual, colorful. Special effects excellent.
• Just as the main character, Jake, enters the world of Pandora, so we feel like we are entering that world.
• Emphasis on ecology.
• Depiction of the connectedness of all life.
• Brutal exposé of the US military-economic machine.
• Symbolism:
  • Navi (like Hebrew and Arabic words for prophet)
  • "Unobtanium"
  • Eywa (the deity) sounds like the Hebrew word for Eve, or living.
  • The planet named Pandora patently portends problems for those who ignore etymology.
  • Parallels between Joshua/Rahab and Jake/Neytiri. Click here for more.
• Jake as incarnation – develops empathy. Effort to understand others.

What was off

• Mother earth (Gaia). Worship creation in place of creator—Romans 1. The Bible teaches that idolatry puts us on a slippery slide, morally.
• Creator is a she. While occasionally in the Bible feminine imagery is used of God, usually it is masculine. Not that God is masculine; he is beyond gender. Making the earth female is actually a form of sexism.
• Romanticization, of indigenous peoples, e.g. in Amazonia.
  • As far as imperialists, colonizers: one corrupt civilization supplanting another. (Not to justify how the Europeans laid claim to the Americas, enslaving, killing, robbing those who had already been here for 10-15k years.)
  • Natives are more advanced than their would-be conquerors? Hmmm….
    • Not in terms of technology.
    • But they were, insofar as they were more moral than the their exploiters.
    • Jake and Neytiri do not marry; they mate.
• Woolly-minded thinking of the New Age movement. To illustrate:
  • Gnosticism is an ancient religion that is now popular, through the intrusion of eastern religion in the west.
  • Its prophets include Tolle and Byrne. (Click to see my comments on their bestselling books.)
  • For more on this movement, click here.

Most useful

• This film makes us think about missions, emphasizing the importance ot awareness, making the effort to under to understand and connect with other.
• It does a masterful job promoting ecological awareness.
• Finally, it serves as a poignant warning against materialism, which offers an elusive dream. Achieving true happiness and meaning through wealth is "unobtainable"!