Fourteen years ago — on September 11, 2001 — America was blindsided by the forces of radical Islam. Pre-9/11, American leaders rightly understood that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims were generally peace-loving people who posed no threat to our homeland. But they failed to adequately comprehend, much less counter, the theology, political ideology, and operational strategy of men like Osama bin Laden.

The results were devastating. The attacks against the World Trade Center, against the Pentagon, and over Shanksville, Pa., killed nearly 3,000 Americans, along with individuals from 93 other nations, in the most devastating sneak attack since we were blindsided by the Imperial Japanese at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Today, President Obama and members of his administration still refuse to use the term “radical Islam,” even as Jordan’s King Abdullah II, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, candidly admits that the West is engaged in a “third world war” against Islamic terrorism. Abdullah adds that, at its core, “this is a Muslim problem. We need to take ownership of this. We need to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong.”

The king is right. The threat of radical Islam to the U.S. and our allies is serious and ongoing.

That said, there is a dramatic shift underway in the Muslim world. The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is no longer radical Islam but apocalyptic Islam.

We face not just one but two regional regimes whose rulers are driven not merely by violent political ideology, or by extremist theology, but by apocalyptic, genocidal eschatology, or End Times theology.

The first is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The second is the Islamic State, or ISIS. The leaders of the former are Shia. The latter are Sunni. Both believe that we are living in the End of Days as predicted in their ancient prophecies. Both believe that any moment now their messiah, the Mahdi, will be revealed on Earth as he establishes his global Islamic kingdom and impose sharia law. Both believe that Jesus will return not as the Savior or Son of God but as a lieutenant to the Mahdi, and that he will force non-Muslims to convert or die.

What’s more, both believe that the Mahdi will come only when the world is engulfed in chaos and carnage. They openly vow not simply to attack but to annihilate the United States and Israel. Iran and ISIS are both eager to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. Both believe that the Day of Judgment is coming soon, when they will be either rewarded for their actions or condemned to hell for eternity. And both are receiving relatively minimal international opposition. Consequently, both believe that Allah is on their side, that the wind is at their back, and that victory is both assured and imminent.

Some in the West first became aware of the apocalyptic beliefs inside Iran through the speeches of then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has long held similar beliefs and openly expresses them.

“The coming of Imam Zaman [another name for the Mahdi] is the definite promise by Allah,” he declared in 2014. “The caravan of humanity from the Day of Creation has been moving . . . to the time of The Coming of Imam Mahdi. The awaiting for The Coming is a hopeful and powerful wait, providing the biggest opening for the Islamic society.” But he adds that the “battle” to establish the Mahdi’s kingdom “will only end when the [Islamic] society can get rid of the oppressors’ front, with America at the head of it.”



As recently as July 18, 2015 — just four days after President Obama hailed his nuclear deal with Iran as a great achievement for world peace and security — Khamenei publicly reaffirmed Iran’s long-standing policy of destroying the U.S. and Israel. “The slogans of the Iranian nation on Al-Quds [Jerusalem] Day show what its position is,” he said in a speech. “The slogans ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ have resounded throughout the country, and are not limited to Tehran and the other large cities. The entire country is under the umbrella of this great movement.” “

Even after this deal, our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change,” he added. Even Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, widely hailed in the West as a “moderate,” has urged Iranians to act on that policy. “Saying ‘Death to America’ is easy,” he said when running for office in 2013. “We need to express ‘death to America’ with action.”

Consider, too, the words of the various leaders of ISIS.

“We perform jihad here [in Iraq] while our eyes are upon al-Quds,” declared Abu Musab Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, the al-Qaeda division that morphed into ISIS.
“We fight here, while our goal is Rome with good expectations concerning Allah that He makes us the keys for the prophetic good tidings and godly decrees.” “The Mahdi will come any day,” Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the ISIS leader after Zarqawi’s death, constantly told his people, recruiting new followers with the promise of being glorious fighters in history’s Final Hour.

“Our last message is to the Americans,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, another ISIS leader, declared in an audio recording on January 21, 2014. “Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day.” In the near term, ISIS is more dangerous because it is on a jihadist rampage now. In the longer term, Iran’s leaders are more dangerous.

By summer of 2014, Baghdadi, a fervent apostle of Sunni apocalyptic eschatology, had officially declared the caliphate, laying the groundwork for the Mahdi’s return. “Rush, O Muslims, to your state,” he said in July 2014. “This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.” From his reading of Sunni End Times prophecies, Baghdadi saw Rome not only as the historic center of Christendom but as a symbol of the apostate Western powers, led by the United States, which would soon be vanquished by Muslim forces.

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” vowed an official ISIS spokesman in Dabiq, the magazine of the Islamic State, named after the Syrian town where Sunnis believe one of history’s final battles will occur.

While Iranian and ISIS leaders share similar eschatological beliefs, they are by no means the same. Indeed, each considers the other “infidel.” They are warring against one another in Iraq and Syria.

They are also pursuing very different strategies. The leaders of ISIS are focused on developing the territorial, financial, and administrative infrastructure required to build the caliphate. The leaders of Iran are focused on developing the scientific, technological, and financial capacities they need to build a nuclear bomb. The leaders of ISIS believe in committing genocide now, and for them simple swords and AK-47s suffice. The leaders of Iran are preparing to commit genocide later and so are investing enormous sums of time and money on their nuclear program.

In the near term, ISIS is more dangerous because it is on a jihadist rampage now — robbing, killing, destroying, enslaving, raping, torturing, and beheading Christians, Muslims and others. In the longer term, Iran’s leaders are more dangerous. Owing to the numerous loopholes in the recent nuclear deal, they will be able to bide their time and, at a time of their choosing, build a nuclear arsenal capable of killing millions of people in a matter of minutes. Iranian and ISIS leaders are not alone in their fascination with End Times matters.

Such interest runs deep through the Muslim world. According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, most Muslims believe they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.” In Egypt, 40 percent of Muslims believe expect to see the Mahdi in their lifetime. In Jordan, it’s 41 percent; among Palestinians, 46 percent; in Iraq, a stunning 72 percent.

A large number of Muslims also believe that Jesus will return to Earth in the final battle for Jerusalem. According to Pew, 29 percent of Muslims in Jordan believe this; in Egypt, 39 percent; among Palestinians, 46 percent; in Iraq, 64 percent. Not all Muslims who hold these views also believe in launching genocidal attacks against the West. However, it does mean that the pool from which those who do pursue apocalyptic Islam can recruit is large and growing. While the threat of radical Islam remains high and serious, the greater threat to the United States, Israel, and our Arab allies is now posed by the forces of apocalyptic Islam, those who seek not simply to attack us but to annihilate us in order to hasten the coming of their messiah.

Do U.S. policymakers and the presidential candidates understand the nature of this threat? If they do, they should explain how they would counter it before it’s too late.

— Joel C. Rosenberg is the best-selling author of novels, including The Twelfth Imam (Tyndale, 2013) and The Third Target (2015), and of non-fiction books about Iran, ISIS, and other Mideast issues. Read more at:


Posted: September 11, 2015

Posted in Current Events, History | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Katherine Wacker:

Some catharsis and perspective after Saturday….

Originally posted on huskerhankwordpresscom:

We all saw the same Illinois game and we all felt the disappointment.  We all probably questioned the same play calls and shook our heads at the same time.

What you saw yesterday was Mike Riley’s philosophy.  He is a pass first, run second coach and I believe that was known by the powers that be at Nebraska when he was hired.

I’m not sure they cared.

Last time, I discussed the problems with Pelini and the poor shape in which he left this program, and I will not revisit that here.

This is my take on the philosophy situation: Riley needs to come clean and admit his philosophy.  He has played the game of not telling us, like a politician, because he knows this program’s success as a smash mouth football program.  He knows that is what we, as fans,  prefer.

Riley doesn’t agree.

Osborne told Riley when they…

View original 1,188 more words

Posted in Devotional | Leave a comment

Review of Bathsheba




Taken from her husband and imposed on by the king, Bathsheba must live in the shadow of a grievous sin. Will God redeem her and the legacy she leaves?

I enjoy historical and biblical fiction if it is done well, and I learn something new about the context of the Bible stories I’ve heard since I was young. I was intrigued by Bathsheba because so much of her story has been shrouded in controversy. I found Angela Hunt’s creative retelling fascinating as she revisits the darkest chapter of David’s life through the eyes of the woman who was there.

The setting of Bathsheba takes place during the apex of David’s rule as the shepherd-king of Israel when most of his enemies had been subdued. The vivid descriptions of the surroundings, as well as the presentation of Hebrew customs and culture, show the lengths the author goes to in order to research the novel’s historical background, allowing the reader to be immersed in the story from beginning to end.

The story of Bathsheba is told through two points of view: those of Bathsheba, and also Nathan the prophet. Each character has a unique voice and perspective, and they relay portions of the narrative in inventive ways which make the story more interesting without disrupting its flow, leaving it free from author intrusion.

The dialogue between characters seems both natural and plausible. It reveals the characters’ motivations without telling too much or seeking to inform the reader. The conversations portray the characters as sympathetic, complex, imperfect, but full of depth.

The plot and the pace of Bathsheba are driven by outside events which lead to the deep feelings of pain and loss in the characters. The novel does not have a suspenseful tone, but the story does not lack intrigue, as most of it takes place within the walls of a palace. Some of these events come from the author’s imagination and serve to enhance the plotline, but they lead to an effective climax and satisfying ending and remain true to the Scriptural account.

The conflict in the novel is driven by external events. King David’s poor choices as a king, husband, and father lead to disastrous consequences for him and those he loves. His sin not only costs him the death of his children but divides his kingdom as well. This, of course leads to deep internal struggle within the characters themselves who must overcome incredible obstacles in order to grow. The conflict throughout the novel gives the story incredible impact.

Although the story is a biblical, the reader doesn’t have to wade through large portions of Scripture or preachy text. However, the spiritual message is clear and distinct as the story is communicated extremely effectively.

There is no doubt that the novel gives a new perspective on the story of Bathsheba. It might differ from the majority opinion of her involvement in the affair with King David. There is only one aspect of the novel that seems out of place. At times, in the beginning of the story, the prophet Nathan seems infatuated with the title character. This seems inconsistent with his integrity and the biblical narrative. However, Hunt stays close to the Scriptural account the majority of the time.

Bathsheba is geared toward Christian women who like biblical and historical fiction. It is a stand-alone novel but the second in Angela Hunt’s A Dangerous Beauty series. Readers should be aware that there are a few scenes that are designed for a mature audience, though not inappropriate.

Apart from some inconsistent characterization, Bathsheba is a fascinating retelling of a biblical story which shows that God’s mercy is greater than the gravest of sins.


I was given a free copy from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.

Posted in Book review | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review of My Brother’s Crown

My Brother's Crown

Two cousins, separated by generations, must save their family’s legacy. Will they succeed? Or will the burden they are called to carry be too much to bear?

As a fan of historical fiction, My Brother’s Crown intrigued me from the beginning. Not knowing much about the persecution of French Protestants it seemed to be an entertaining way to inform myself. I was not disappointed.

The setting of My Brother’s Crown takes place in two diverse locations: present-day Virginia and seventeenth century France during Louis X1V’s reign. The Huguenots, who had enjoyed some religious freedom in a Catholic country, are now feeling the pressure of persecution. From page one, the reader is immediately immersed in the privation of these Christians as they try to escape to freedom. Although the authors take some liberties with the setting and the events surrounding the historical plot, they should be credited with alerting readers to those liberties. The present-day setting is also fascinating as the backdrop of the story. However, it lacks some of the picturesque detail of the plot in the past.

My Brother’s Crown is told through two points of view: those of Rene (present) and Catherine (past). Each is a strong woman determined to overcome the obstacles placed in her path. However, the characters in Catherine’s story are much more sympathetic and believable, while those around Rene seem immature and superficial despite an interesting storyline.

Though the two storylines take place 350 years apart, they switch seamlessly with each other, and a suspenseful tone is carried throughout the book. However, the suspense in the historical plotline is much more effective than in the present-day one.

In My Brother’s Crown, the plot and conflict are driven by the characters’ actions and external events, which lead to internal struggles and incredibly hard choices. The conflicts in the story allow for deep growth in the historical characters, while the cotemporary ones remain flat and inexplicably unchanged. This strange dichotomy continues in the romantic angle. The love story in the historical plot is used to deepen the characters’ relationships and grow together while the present-day romance is simplistic and unrealistic as if the contemporary plot needed another subplot, so two characters are thrown together to put more intrigue in the story. The dichotomy occurs again as the story ends. The seventeenth century storyline is exquisitely written with a satisfying climax. Although the present-day plot is suspenseful, it lacks depth, feels rushed, confusingly incomplete, and the murder mystery remains unsolved at the end, even though the authors are laying the groundwork for a sequel.

The spiritual message in the novel is strong and unmistakable. But, as with the rest of the novel, it is communicated more effectively in the storyline of the past because the characters’ faith is shown to be genuine by the way they conduct themselves through various trials.

My Brother’s Crown is a stand-alone novel and is the first in Mindy Starnes Clark’s and Leslie Gould’s Cousins of the Dove series. The book is geared toward Christian women who like historical fiction and contemporary romance with a little mystery thrown in. There is a murder scene in the contemporary plot that could bother some readers.

The historical plotline is almost enough to make up for the contemporary plotline’s shortcomings, and My Brother’s Crown is still a good story.


I was given a free copy from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.

Posted in Book review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Disregard for the Law Is America’s Greatest Threat By Victor Davis Hanson

Barbarians at the gate usually don’t bring down once-successful civilizations. Nor does climate change. Even mass epidemics like the plague that decimated sixth-century Byzantium do not necessarily destroy a culture.

Far more dangerous are institutionalized corruption, a lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. All the German euros in the world will not save Greece if Greeks continue to dodge taxes, featherbed government and see corruption as a business model.

Even obeying so-called minor laws counts. It is no coincidence that a country where drivers routinely flout traffic laws and throw trash out the window is also a country that cooks its books and lies to its creditors. Everything from littering to speeding seems negotiable in Athens in a way not true of Munich, Zurich orLondon.

Mexico is a much naturally richer country than Greece. It is blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens should not be voting with their feet to reject their homeland for the U.S.

But Mexico also continues to be a mess because police expect bribes, property rights are iffy, and government works only for those who pay kickbacks. The result is that only north, not south, of the U.S.-Mexico border can people expect upward mobility, clean water, adequate public safety and reliable power.

In much of the Middle East and Africa, tribalism and bribery, not meritocracy, determine who gets hired and fired, wins or loses a contract, or receives or goes without public services.

Americans, too, should worry about these age-old symptoms of internal decay.

The frightening thing about disgraced IRS bureaucrat Lois Lerner’s knowledge of selective audits of groups on the basis of their politics is not just that she seemed to ignore it, but that she seemingly assumed no one would find out, or perhaps even mind. And she may well have been right. So far, no one at the IRS has shown much remorse for corrupting an honor-based system of tax compliance.

Illegal immigration has been a prominent subject in the news lately, between Donald Trump’s politically incorrect, imprecise and crass stereotyping of illegal immigrants and the shocking murder of a young San Francisco woman gratuitously gunned down in public by a Mexican citizen who had been convicted of seven felonies in the United States and had been deported five times. But the subject of illegal immigration is, above all, a matter of law enforcement.

Ultimately, no nation can continue to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws. Liberal “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco choose to ignore immigration laws. Imagine the outcry if a town in Utah or Montana arbitrarily declared that federal affirmative action or gay marriage laws were null and void within its municipal borders.

Once an immigrant has successfully broken the law by entering and residing in the U.S. illegally, there is little incentive for him to obey other laws. Increasing percentages of unnaturalized immigrants are not showing up for their immigration hearings — and those percentages are higher still for foreign nationals who have been charged with crimes.

The general public wonders why some are selectively exempt from following the law, but others are not. If federal immigration law does not apply to foreign nationals, why should building codes, zoning laws or traffic statutes apply to U.S. citizens?

Consider the immigration activists’ argument that immigration authorities should focus only on known felons and not those who only broke immigration law. This is akin to arguing that the IRSshouldn’t worry about whether everyday Americans pay their income taxes and should enforce the tax laws only against those with past instances of tax avoidance.

But why single out the poor and foreign-born? Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton once pocketed a $100,000 cattle-futures profit from a $1,000 investment, with help from an insider crony. A group of economists calculated the odds of such an unlikely return at one in 31 trillion. Clinton then trumped that windfall by failing to fully pay taxes on her commodities profits, only addressing that oversight years later.

Why did Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, snub government protocols by using a private email account and a private server, and then permanently deleting any emails she felt were not government-related? Clinton long ago concluded that laws in her case were to be negotiated, not obeyed.

President Obama called for higher taxes on the wealthy. But before doing so, could he at least have asked his frequent advisor on racial matters, Al Sharpton, to pay millions in back taxes and penalties?

Might the government ask that its own employees pay the more than $3 billion in collective federal back taxes that they owe, since they expect other taxpayers to keep paying their salaries?

Civilizations unwind insidiously not with a loud, explosive bang, but with a lawless whimper.


Posted: July 10,2015

Posted in Constitution Corner, History, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Be Thou My Vision


Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art
Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.

Be Thou my Wisdom, and Thou my true Word;
I ever with Thee and Thou with me, Lord;
Thou my great Father, I Thy true son;
Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.

Be Thou my battle Shield, Sword for the fight;
Be Thou my Dignity, Thou my Delight;
Thou my soul’s Shelter, Thou my high Tower:
Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power.

Riches I heed not, nor man’s empty praise,
Thou mine Inheritance, now and always:
Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,
High King of Heaven, my Treasure Thou art.

High King of Heaven, my victory won,
May I reach Heaven’s joys, O bright Heaven’s Sun!
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all.

Lyrics By Dallán Forgaill

Music By David Evans

Posted in Music | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review Of Eve By Tim Challies



On the positive side, I think [William] Paul Young has become a markedly better writer since The Shack. On the negative side, he continues to use his writing to undermine and redefine Christian theology. By my reckoning, that’s a net loss. Where The Shack was meant to revolutionize our understanding of God, his new novel Eve is meant to revolutionize and rescue our understanding of the relationship between men and women. And it is no less troubling.

Now, obviously Eve is fiction, which means it can be tricky to determine exactly what the author actually means to teach through his story. There is a lot in the novel that is complex and symbolic and that awaits the author’s authoritative interpretation. But what is clear is that Young’s novel is a retelling of the creation narrative through which he means to right a great wrong.

The story begins when a shipping container washes ashore on an island that exists somewhere between our world and the next. John the Collector finds a young woman named Lilly trapped inside. She is beaten, bruised, broken, and only barely alive. With the help of others—Scholars and Healers—he helps her to recover, to remember who she is, and to understand her importance in history. Lilly, it turns out, is a Witness, one who has the privilege of watching past events unfold so they can be properly understood and interpreted in the present time. Her privilege is to witness creation and the fall into sin, and in that way to provide an account that corrects all our false understandings.

What she witnesses varies significantly from the account we are accustomed to hearing. A sampling of the differences includes:

  • She sees that the world began with a big bang and that this involved the passing of billions of years (“I can’t believe all I saw happened in six days.” … “What you witnessed, especially the Days of Creation, likely took billions of years.”). (Note: In the book’s acknowledgements section Young thanks Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe for helping him “craft the days of creation in a way respectful to both the text and to science,” suggesting he may hold to the day-age view and, perhaps, the existence of an historical Adam.)
  • She sees Jesus create Adam as an infant from the dust of the ground, and sees God personally nurse Adam from his breasts (“Here in my arms and nursing at my breast is the highest expression of my creation.” “Mythology is responsible for many odd ideas. … Did your Storytellers think that Adam was created as a young man with no capacity, a brute ready to be programmed?”).
  • She sees that Adam falls into sin before Eve was even created, and that the naming of the animals is an infuriating kind of penance for Adam (“Spinning away, the young man raised his fists and screamed fury into the sky, one word. It reverberated and echoed back as time and place and beast stood still. ‘Alone!’”).
  • She sees that Eve is not taken out of Adam as much as she grows within Adam and is birthed from him (“Adam’s belly grew, expanding with a pregnancy. … In nine months God fashioned the feminine side of Adam’s humanity, the female who slept within…”).
  • She sees that Adam and Satan (in the guise of a snake) conspire together to take advantage of Eve’s naïveté, so that Eve is an innocent party in her own downfall (“She had been betrayed and now was being blamed by Adam for what he had conceived in his own heart.”).
  • She sees that God is triune and genderless and, therefore, best referred to with gender-neutral, third-person pronouns (“God turned Their face to the woman and gently spoke with words of sorrow…”).

In short, she sees a whole new and “corrected” view of humanity’s origins and depravity. Through this character, Young means to show that the story of humanity’s fall into sin has been co-opted and perverted by men in order to gain power over women. Eve’s role in offering Adam the forbidden fruit is a fable men use to dominate and control women.

“But it’s all just a story,” you say. True, but in this case, Young insists that his story, and the truth it contains, is the result of decades of thought and research. He insists that the truth embedded in this story has the power to free us from faulty interpretations of the Bible that have long corrupted human relationships. In an interview with Publishers Weekly he says, “Ultimately, the inspiration for Eve is the Scriptures themselves. The more I studied and pondered and conversed, the more I was driven back to Genesis and the iconic saga of Beginnings, and it was there I began to find answers to the big, system-shaking questions I was asking. Eve is my attempt to express some of what I discovered.” In that way he plays a character within his own work—the character(s) he calls the Scholar.

Now, it’s not like the book is all bad. In fact, there are points where it is downright moving. Young’s descriptions of God’s joy over his creation, and especially his joy in the creation of man, is powerful and stirring. Man’s response to God’s love is equally sweet. Young’s compassion in describing the agonizing abuse endured by Lilly can only come out of the heart of an author who has himself suffered. And the story, while perhaps too complicated at times, is well-written and well-told.

And yet it is, in the final assessment, a troubling, faulty, and even dangerous story. There is much I could say here, but for the sake of brevity, let me target the book’s big point.

Whatever else Young means to accomplish in his work, it is clear that he means to undermine the traditional accounts of creation and human depravity. As he reinterprets those two doctrines, he then reinterprets the relationship between the sexes, teaching that any pattern of authority or submission is necessarily a product of sin. Even Adam naming Eve is, in Young’s retelling, a display of his longing for power and dominance over woman. Young goes so far in his desire to show the sinful dominance of man that he eventually elevates woman over man, femininity over masculinity, as if one is the antidote to the other. “[Women] is Adonai’s invitation to embrace frailty and softness, to be whole and unashamed, to return fully from his turning.” In this way man’s solution for sin is not only the promised offspring of the woman, but woman herself.

Ironically, Young’s insistence on complete egalitarianism is inconsistent with his own story. His Witnesses, Scholars, and Collectors are all equals, yet each with his (or her) own role. Young’s world and his story only work when each of his characters freely and joyfully plays his or her role. In the same way God, in his creative work, assigned separate roles to men and women. In God’s world no role is better or greater or higher than another, but each is critical to the story he is telling.

God tells us that God created men to take positions of leadership within the church and family, and for women to joyfully submit themselves to this leadership. In this way God provides a much fuller display of who he is and what he is like. His image is shown not in uniformity but in complementarity. After all, the relationships within the Trinity display this very same pattern of leadership and submission. What is ultimately at stake here is not the relationship of man to woman, but our understanding of God as he displays himself in our relationships.

Behind Young’s retelling of this portion of the Bible is the question of the Bible’s authority. The only way he can teach what he teaches is by radically altering the biblical narrative. So has the Bible been wrong all along? Is the Bible only a figurative count and Eve a faithful interpretation? Were the authors such a product of their time, place, and culture that they biased their work with chauvinist ideas? As the dust settles, what exactly is true anyway? Read Eve and you won’t have much certainty.

In that same interview with Publishers Weekly Young says, “There are also some who will read it and won’t ‘see’ her, sometimes because the timing isn’t right and their life’s journey has not granted the gifts inherent in suffering, or because their assumptions are too overwhelming and powerful to allow them to hear.” More condescending words have rarely been uttered. He seems unwilling to consider that perhaps it’s not that our assumptions are too overwhelming, but that God’s Word is too clear.


Posted:September 22, 2015


Posted in Book review, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment