I thought I bought this at a Christian bookstore out of town, but it was second-hand, which confuses me some. I enjoy the topic. I find it refreshing to go back to basics and just enjoy Jesus for awhile, and in that, this book succeeded in its goal.
Some of it I enjoyed very much; some of it I had minor concerns with.
I ended up sharing the ABCs she listed for our self-image with a friend who was struggling with the concept that her worth is more than what she earns. Normally, I'd rather contemplate God rather than ourselves, which can shift into either self-centeredness or idolatry. But, there is a place for an appropriate view of the ways God has loved us.
Anne Graham Lotz had: Accepted by God, Beloved by God, Chosen by God, Delivered by God, Enlightened by God, Forgiven by God, have the Grace of God, Hope, Inheritance in heaven, Justification, Knowledge of God, Love, Mercy of God, Nearness to God, Oneness with God, Peace, Quickening of the Spirit, Redeemed, Sealed with the Holy Spirit, Treasured by God, United with other believers, Validated as an authentic child of God, have Wisdom.
I don't know why she stopped there. I would have added Yearning for God and Zealous for God. I have a caveat about the Oneness with God in the list. We can have unity with Him, but we are not Him, not a part of Him. The Creator is always more than the created. I would venture to say that she probably understands this, but it wasn't clear in the reading.
I appreciated the beautiful reminder of the Holy Spirit being the Comforter.
I enjoyed the story of Robert Louis Stevenson, as a child, telling his nanny about the lamplighter, "That man is putting holes in the darkness."
I liked the idea of putting someone's name into 1 John 4, particularly those with those we have frustrations. I had done that before with 1 Corinthians 13 but not 1 John 4.
I liked the quote: “Their superficial examination of ‘the fruit’ leads them to a shallow faith that believes Jesus is a good man, a great man, perhaps even a prophet from God, but they stop short of truly being convinced He is the unique, only begotten Son of God – God Himself in a man’s body. Like Nicodemus, they believe Jesus can help them find what they are looking for, but it never occurs to them that all they are looking for can be found in Jesus Himself – Jesus alone.”
I thought that the description with the last few chapters were beautiful in appreciating Jesus, (those chapters raised this rating from a 3 to a 4), but early in the book, it troubled me when she had description that didn't come from scripture. We don't know whether Martha's hair was messy from working in the kitchen or not. She might be offended with that portrayal of her... I know that might be a little thing, but there were many such little things. These were real people and real events and some things maybe we were not told for a reason, and maybe the author didn't always guess right.
I felt a little sorry for her husband in her talking negatively about him. I wondered if she had his permission to share those things about him.
There is the topic of women in ministry. She gave a more serious consideration of the verses on the issue towards the end of the book. Before that, mostly she marveled at men's negative attitude towards her as a Christian woman speaker. At that earlier point in the book, she seemed to put them down for that understanding without doing the hard work of trying to understand the other side of the issue.
Eventually, she did ask God to give her an understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 in which she grappled with those harder verses on the topic. But ... it didn't feel like it followed a mathematically logical understanding of the statement. It can be parsed as "not (statement P or statement Q)." ~ (P v Q) would be the mathematical symbolic notation of it. Somehow, she felt that ~Q was the important aspect of it and felt free to ignore ~P. But logic, even grammatical logic, doesn't work that way. I feel like it's a little off-kilter to me because it's a command and not truth statements, that it can be read more ~P n ~Q. Plus, I am always suspicious when people wave their hands and say this or that part of scripture doesn't matter.
Sigh. There are other, more intellectually honest, intellectually satisfying ways to get at that passage. The most convincing one, to me, is the first part of the passage, "I do not permit ..." in which Paul made it clear that it was his own rule, not God's. A similar construct would be when he said, "To the rest, I say this (I, not the Lord) ..." in 1 Cor. 7:12. In his writings, Paul distinguished what was from him and what was from God.
I do think that there are valid points on both sides of that argument, and it's not really an issue I want to argue here or elsewhere. My point was more that her approach on this issue didn't seem to come from the scripture itself, and she seemed to be more focused on what others were doing wrong and not on what she was doing wrong herself. It just didn't feel balanced to me, although it is hard to find balance in this world.