# Freedom of Simplicity (Foster)



## RamistThomist (May 14, 2015)

Trigger Warning: Foster is a Quaker

As far as spiritual disciplines books go, this is one of the better ones. Foster is (usually) wise enough to know that enforcing a lot of these disciplines and practices as a "law" is legalism. And he doesn't do that. His thesis is simple (no pun intended): simplicity allows us to live in freedom to God (Foster 3). Simplicity exposes our numerous "false selves."

How then should one live in simplicity? Here is where it gets tricky. Foster knows he cannot "make" any of his suggestions a law for the Christian life, otherwise he is going beyond the gospel. (Some of the earlier SoJo guys did just that, but to their credit they later retracted their Galatianism). But he does give practical suggestions and many of them are quite good.

Pros:
1. Great section on prayer and fasting.
2. Great section on the False Self (80-81).
3. He is aware that a lot of, say, Ron Sider's earlier proposals probably won't pan out and so he recommends a more balanced approach.c

Cons:
1. Like many connected with Sojourner's Magazine, he accidentally makes the mistake of using big 
corporate government to fight big corporate government (181). He advocates multinational institutions to fight multinational institutions.

2. He praises the IMF as a possible rescue organization for the poor. This is ironic since many social justice people criticize the IMF's loan policy as crippling the developing world. So which is it?

3. There are problems with Adam Smith (174), but no one accused Marx and Engels of lifting 2 billion of the world's population out of poverty.

4. He makes the astute observation that spiritual principalities are behind many unjust social structures (164-165). Further, he is correct that these principalities can empower evil multinational corporations. The problem is he paints himself into a corner: he really has no way of fighting these multinational principality structures outside of appealing to something like the UN. This cure is worse than the disease. Further, he says exousiai in Romans 13 means spiritual principalities. That reading really strains the rest of the text, those his larger point holds.

Conclusion:

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. He is much more balanced than Sider et al. He writes with the wisdom of experience.


----------



## MW (May 14, 2015)

Doesn't this book speak in admiration of the ascetics, mystics, Quakers, and perfectionists?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 14, 2015)

MW said:


> Doesn't this book speak in admiration of the ascetics, mystics, Quakers, and perfectionists?



Not that much and not as bad as in his other books. Foster is a Quaker, so that's to be expected. I reviewed the book because church people ask questions about it. I probably should have mentioned all the caveats, but I figured if people knew he was a Quaker then they knew the baggage.


----------



## MW (May 14, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Not that much and not as bad as in his other books. Foster is a Quaker, so that's to be expected. I reviewed the book because church people ask questions about it. I probably should have mentioned all the caveats, but I figured if people knew he was a Quaker then they knew the baggage.



If one is going to provide a review for the benefit of a reformed confessional board I think the reviewer is obliged to provide critical appraisal from that reformed confessional perspective. The ascetic, mystical, reality-escaping, quietistic, pietistic, and perfectionist views are anti-biblical, self-sanctifying, soul-destroying teachings, which should be opposed at every turn.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 15, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Not that much and not as bad as in his other books. Foster is a Quaker, so that's to be expected. I reviewed the book because church people ask questions about it. I probably should have mentioned all the caveats, but I figured if people knew he was a Quaker then they knew the baggage.
> ...



I did provide a critical review. I should have listed that he was a Quaker and had Quakey teachings. Fair enough. I didn't provide commentary and critique on: ascetic, mystical, reality-escaping, quietistic, pietistic, and perfectionist views are anti-biblical, self-sanctifying, soul-destroying teachings, which should be opposed at every turn. because they really weren't there in this book. They are present in other Foster books, but not this one.


----------



## MW (May 15, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> They are present in other Foster books, but not this one.



So, to be clear, are you saying that this book does not speak in admiration of the ascetics, mystics, Quakers, and perfectionists?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > They are present in other Foster books, but not this one.
> ...



Here is what the book says:

1) It mentions the desert fathers. He says they had a number of abuses. He also said they did some good things.
2) He mentions several Quakers (Penn, Woolman) on financial freedom. It's not that much different from balancing a checkbook. He does not praise (or even mention) the Inner Light.
3) If he mentions perfectionists, he distances himself from them (but I really don't think he even mentions perfectionists).


----------

