Reformed Roman
Puritan Board Freshman
In response to:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/godology-awful-book-52608/
I am posting this to challenge some things I read on that post.
Let me start by saying I did read the full review, and I have not read the book.
But I do think some things said in the review and by other posters were probably a little bit insensitive and honestly insulting when I think about it.
A friend recommended Godology to my wife and after reading the book review and hearing her talk about some of the book here are my thoughts:
1: My wife is newly converted. She was homeschooled her whole life, but because she has dyslexia it has made things very hard educationally. she wasn't always raised in the best way schooling wise. When I first started talking to her about the trinity she couldn't understand it. The first thing she started doing was try to use metaphors. At the end of our talk we came to the conclusion, no one metaphor can explain the trinity. However many metaphors can help you understand the trinity, if you understand that all metaphors have limitations.
2: Medically and legitimately my wife learns a lot differently than most. You cannot just give my wife a copy of Jonathan Edwards, or even R.C Sproul and expect her to understand. 99 percent of theology books today would be completely over her head. Not only would they be over her head educationally, but the few books that would be on her level would probably be addressing teens or others of the sort. Anyway, my wife learns completely differently than most. Even in common things, explaining things with metaphors and explaining things through pictures can often be a good way of communicating. I can't just give her a stack of books and definitions and expect her to figure it out.
I think a big thing in reformed circles is that they expect everyone either to be able to read exactly like them or learn exactly like them. Some people either learn completely differently, or literally have medical disorders that have them learn differently.
Regardless, I think education is extremely important. I think my wife learning theological terms is very important, and I do go over them and explain them to her, and yes, I explain definitions.
What I'm trying to say is that many of these explanations are very helpful.
So to quote the book review from the puritan board:
Describing the Trinity, he says,
"Like a three-way mirror, each person in the Godhead satellites the other--an eternal reflection."
Kevin Carroll said:
But beyond that, what does George mean? A reflection is not the thing being reflected, so is he a modalist? I really want to believe that he is not, but the awful comparisons continue.
I say: Using any metaphor to decribe the trinity will be imperfect. That does not mean that metaphors are not helpful, and that doesn't mean they can't help us better understand the trinity. If you even read the quote from the author above, and take it how it is (and not try to be overly academically correct) you will see that in some way, it makes sense. Clearly he is not a modalist or other things. But in an imperfect way it can help you understand one aspect of the trinity
"Like the Irish three-leafed clover...Like a mind, God is intellect, memory, and will--one system, but three functions. Like water, God is fluid, steam, and icicle--one substance, but three textures." (p. 19)
Kevin Carroll said:
Sorry, but that is not remotely orthodox. The leaves of a clover are not the clover nor are the states of water, water.
I've heard MANY people use this metaphor that are completely orthodox. The thing is again, no metaphor can perfectly explain the trinity, that's why so many metaphors are used to explain it. Each metaphor may help you understand a part of the trinity and how it can work if you just understand that the metaphor is flawed in itself.
George describes the outpouring of the Spirit as, "a tag team of epic proportion...He is our teleprompter...our energy drink." (p. 21)
Again. I see nothing wrong with this. My wife really uses metaphors to learn and when she would read that she wouldn't think "haha, God is my energy drink".
An energy drink will literally take over your body physically, it will drag you through your day. Again, it is an imperfect metaphor because it wears off and you crash. Even my wife would understand that.
But just reading that would give her a picture of God and the Spirit working within her, lifting her up, etc.
I am not defending every metaphor used in the book. I definitely wouldn't know.
But using simple language does not dumb down God or make Him look any more magnificient and glorious. This is coming from someone who is about to read "The Holiness of God" by R.C Sproul. This is coming from someone who reads Jonathan Edwards, and John Owen. And honestly, I think sometimes Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll are overly practical. I like to listen to R.C Sproul, John Piper, and other more theologically rich and deep authors.
I just wanted to make a point. Before I met my wife I would have probably read that review and agreed with every word. Too many kids get dumbed down these days and they aren't taught truth. But knowing my wife, how she thinks, learns, etc. She paints, she take pictures, and you know what, if you gave her a paragraph she would probably misspell half of the words, or mix them up with her dyslexia.
Yes, we are learning so many meanings of words. We are going so much deeper, because much of her problem is lack of education, and lack of theological education.
But despite that she learns so much differently than anyone I know. It made me realize that no kid learns the same. No adult learns the same. That's why I now see so many benefits of homeschooling, because I feel we put a box on education. Everybody needs basics and truths but some people learn in different ways.
This book being dumbed down is not bad. To me it's just honestly putting it in terms my wife would legitimately understand. I'd rather give her a theology book like this than a book with 500 words she doesn't know how to say and 500 words she doesn't know the definition of.
Some books she wants to read all the way through, enjoy, and relate to. From everything I read, even in that review. I think this book fits my wife. It may be a rare case due to how she thinks, her education level, her age, and sense of humor. But overall I think it fits her perfectly.
This book seems like it would be perfect for newer Christians, for Christians honestly having a hard time understanding some of the basic truths about God, for teens, or for people who just learn a lot differently than most.
Honestly I think most people in the puritan board would read this and dislike the book. Because when you've read and understood "Knowing God" by J.I Packer, this book will be a HUGE disappointment.
But for those who are too daunted to even touch a John Piper book. Yes, my wife learns so differently, and educationally just wouldn't understand even a simpler John Piper book, I think for those people, this book can help them grasp basic truths.
Because this book is full of metaphors, but even IN THE BOOK THE AUTHOR ADMITS THE METAPHORS ARE IMPERFECT! (wouldn't let me bold that for some reason). My wife just read it and even throughout those metaphors on the trinity he explained how they can't even get close to explaining the deeper picture of the trinity.
But for someone lacking basic understanding, using metaphors if you KNOW they are imperfect can be extremely helpful!
I'm curious on some of your thoughts on this, if what I said maybe changed your minds, gave you a different perspective, etc. Or just for thoughts. Honestly it just makes me sad that using easier to understand language about God and theology makes us so mad. Yes I think it's important to reach further and get to that point but not all of us are there yet. That's why I think simpler terms explaining deep theology can help babes in the faith grasp truths that they might not have understood.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/godology-awful-book-52608/
I am posting this to challenge some things I read on that post.
Let me start by saying I did read the full review, and I have not read the book.
But I do think some things said in the review and by other posters were probably a little bit insensitive and honestly insulting when I think about it.
A friend recommended Godology to my wife and after reading the book review and hearing her talk about some of the book here are my thoughts:
1: My wife is newly converted. She was homeschooled her whole life, but because she has dyslexia it has made things very hard educationally. she wasn't always raised in the best way schooling wise. When I first started talking to her about the trinity she couldn't understand it. The first thing she started doing was try to use metaphors. At the end of our talk we came to the conclusion, no one metaphor can explain the trinity. However many metaphors can help you understand the trinity, if you understand that all metaphors have limitations.
2: Medically and legitimately my wife learns a lot differently than most. You cannot just give my wife a copy of Jonathan Edwards, or even R.C Sproul and expect her to understand. 99 percent of theology books today would be completely over her head. Not only would they be over her head educationally, but the few books that would be on her level would probably be addressing teens or others of the sort. Anyway, my wife learns completely differently than most. Even in common things, explaining things with metaphors and explaining things through pictures can often be a good way of communicating. I can't just give her a stack of books and definitions and expect her to figure it out.
I think a big thing in reformed circles is that they expect everyone either to be able to read exactly like them or learn exactly like them. Some people either learn completely differently, or literally have medical disorders that have them learn differently.
Regardless, I think education is extremely important. I think my wife learning theological terms is very important, and I do go over them and explain them to her, and yes, I explain definitions.
What I'm trying to say is that many of these explanations are very helpful.
So to quote the book review from the puritan board:
Describing the Trinity, he says,
"Like a three-way mirror, each person in the Godhead satellites the other--an eternal reflection."
Kevin Carroll said:
But beyond that, what does George mean? A reflection is not the thing being reflected, so is he a modalist? I really want to believe that he is not, but the awful comparisons continue.
I say: Using any metaphor to decribe the trinity will be imperfect. That does not mean that metaphors are not helpful, and that doesn't mean they can't help us better understand the trinity. If you even read the quote from the author above, and take it how it is (and not try to be overly academically correct) you will see that in some way, it makes sense. Clearly he is not a modalist or other things. But in an imperfect way it can help you understand one aspect of the trinity
"Like the Irish three-leafed clover...Like a mind, God is intellect, memory, and will--one system, but three functions. Like water, God is fluid, steam, and icicle--one substance, but three textures." (p. 19)
Kevin Carroll said:
Sorry, but that is not remotely orthodox. The leaves of a clover are not the clover nor are the states of water, water.
I've heard MANY people use this metaphor that are completely orthodox. The thing is again, no metaphor can perfectly explain the trinity, that's why so many metaphors are used to explain it. Each metaphor may help you understand a part of the trinity and how it can work if you just understand that the metaphor is flawed in itself.
George describes the outpouring of the Spirit as, "a tag team of epic proportion...He is our teleprompter...our energy drink." (p. 21)
Again. I see nothing wrong with this. My wife really uses metaphors to learn and when she would read that she wouldn't think "haha, God is my energy drink".
An energy drink will literally take over your body physically, it will drag you through your day. Again, it is an imperfect metaphor because it wears off and you crash. Even my wife would understand that.
But just reading that would give her a picture of God and the Spirit working within her, lifting her up, etc.
I am not defending every metaphor used in the book. I definitely wouldn't know.
But using simple language does not dumb down God or make Him look any more magnificient and glorious. This is coming from someone who is about to read "The Holiness of God" by R.C Sproul. This is coming from someone who reads Jonathan Edwards, and John Owen. And honestly, I think sometimes Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll are overly practical. I like to listen to R.C Sproul, John Piper, and other more theologically rich and deep authors.
I just wanted to make a point. Before I met my wife I would have probably read that review and agreed with every word. Too many kids get dumbed down these days and they aren't taught truth. But knowing my wife, how she thinks, learns, etc. She paints, she take pictures, and you know what, if you gave her a paragraph she would probably misspell half of the words, or mix them up with her dyslexia.
Yes, we are learning so many meanings of words. We are going so much deeper, because much of her problem is lack of education, and lack of theological education.
But despite that she learns so much differently than anyone I know. It made me realize that no kid learns the same. No adult learns the same. That's why I now see so many benefits of homeschooling, because I feel we put a box on education. Everybody needs basics and truths but some people learn in different ways.
This book being dumbed down is not bad. To me it's just honestly putting it in terms my wife would legitimately understand. I'd rather give her a theology book like this than a book with 500 words she doesn't know how to say and 500 words she doesn't know the definition of.
Some books she wants to read all the way through, enjoy, and relate to. From everything I read, even in that review. I think this book fits my wife. It may be a rare case due to how she thinks, her education level, her age, and sense of humor. But overall I think it fits her perfectly.
This book seems like it would be perfect for newer Christians, for Christians honestly having a hard time understanding some of the basic truths about God, for teens, or for people who just learn a lot differently than most.
Honestly I think most people in the puritan board would read this and dislike the book. Because when you've read and understood "Knowing God" by J.I Packer, this book will be a HUGE disappointment.
But for those who are too daunted to even touch a John Piper book. Yes, my wife learns so differently, and educationally just wouldn't understand even a simpler John Piper book, I think for those people, this book can help them grasp basic truths.
Because this book is full of metaphors, but even IN THE BOOK THE AUTHOR ADMITS THE METAPHORS ARE IMPERFECT! (wouldn't let me bold that for some reason). My wife just read it and even throughout those metaphors on the trinity he explained how they can't even get close to explaining the deeper picture of the trinity.
But for someone lacking basic understanding, using metaphors if you KNOW they are imperfect can be extremely helpful!
I'm curious on some of your thoughts on this, if what I said maybe changed your minds, gave you a different perspective, etc. Or just for thoughts. Honestly it just makes me sad that using easier to understand language about God and theology makes us so mad. Yes I think it's important to reach further and get to that point but not all of us are there yet. That's why I think simpler terms explaining deep theology can help babes in the faith grasp truths that they might not have understood.
Last edited: