John Martindale

John’s Bookshelves

to-read‎ (23)
currently-reading‎ (5)
read‎ (2339)
audiobook‎ (1880)
religion‎ (501)
christian‎ (376)
history‎ (337)
philosophy‎ (327)
psychology‎ (300)

fantasy‎ (278)
politics‎ (224)
science‎ (193)
theology‎ (171)
biography‎ (156)
favorites‎ (153)
classics‎ (112)
hope-to-re-read‎ (77)
children‎ (75)

doubt‎ (67)
apologetics‎ (66)
education‎ (65)
modern-fiction‎ (61)
text-to-speech‎ (61)
pop-neuroscience‎ (54)
science-fiction‎ (54)
art‎ (51)
humor‎ (49)

self-help‎ (46)
health‎ (41)
economics‎ (33)
mythology‎ (20)
short-story‎ (15)
travel‎ (13)
church‎ (9)
poetry‎ (6)
missionary-stories‎ (5)

Stats | More…

John is Currently Reading

John Martindale is currently reading

A Guide to American Christian Education for the Home and School: The Principle Approach

by James Rose

bookshelves: currently-reading, christian, education

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

John Martindale said: " Interestingly, God’s telos of everything, in James Rose's philosophy of history, is liberty. It seems that in a similar manner as the New Testament writers claimed their people’s story was leading to Christ, so Rose, so enamored with Old School prote Interestingly, God’s telos of everything, in James Rose's philosophy of history, is liberty. It seems that in a similar manner as the New Testament writers claimed their people’s story was leading to Christ, so Rose, so enamored with Old School protestant America, sees the entirety of history (with Jesus as simply a datum point) leading up to the Liberty found at America’s founding. Just as early Christians paid little mind to the historical and literary context of Hebrew scriptures and cared nothing for the likely intended meaning, but instead read in Christ everywhere, so Rose, having made Christian American Liberty the END of all history, can view the bible with this lens and “find evidence” for it everywhere. I must say it feels icky, the way the Telos of Christ is replaced by America. It feels idolatrous. As Christians, if we are going to engage in the hugely speculative and subjective venture of making a philosophy of history, we ought to stick to Jesus as THE END. That said, using liberty as A (in contrast to THE) frame for viewing history, it can be a valuable approach. In a philosophy of history, it provides a narrative by which we can select what to include (and exclude), and evaluate the good and bad. It is interesting to consider historical events and reflect on whether it led to liberty. Liberty, as they define it (people having good character and being self-governed), is a good, and it is interesting to consider history from this perspective. As long as it is recognized as a single lens.

I think we need to maintain humility and maintain a level of skepticism towards any absolute and all-embracing meta-narrative, especially if it is claimed to be drawn from the Bible. The antiquity, ambiguity, and diversity of the scriptural canon mean that confirmation bias can have an absolute heyday for those who are overconfident in things they presume true prior to investigation. Passages that contradict his stated end can simply be ignored, and then ambiguous passages detached from their ancient context can be interpreted as presenting timeless and absolute truth supporting their philosophy of history. In some cases, I think that Rose's approach and use of the bible could make literally ANYTHING “biblical”. Finding some proof text that seems to vaguely relate is the way to rubber-stamp his beliefs—making every political and religious opinion inerrant Biblical TRUTH. Disagree with them, and you disagree with the bible. His opinions are “biblical,” and all opinions that he disagrees with are unbiblical, pagan, and secular.

Providential history not only applies this approach to the Bible, but also to history in general, or as they would say His-story. But here they must select what is to be focused on; they must assume and assert that God is doing and his purposes, and they must ignore all the contrary data and create unrealistic heroic pictures of their “good guys”, and they justify the evil means to the ends that they like.

Calvinistically, they assume God not only predetermined the end but also the means. Though not in the book, I wouldn’t be surprised if some would see it as God’s glorious providence that the Europeans brought disease that decimated the native population. America was the end of all history, and the indigenous peoples were in the way--oh the glories of God's providence! One thing I know is that some Principle Approach proponents spin Christopher Columbus as a pinnacle of virtue. They focus on early passages in his journals where he expressed his desire to win the natives to the Lord, instead of later sections where he casually states how he had a native woman tortured after she resisted his raping her and how this torture was effective, turning her into a submissive whore. Anyhow, once they decide Columbus is a HERO, a part of the chain of Christianity leading up to liberty in America, he must become a beautiful part of providential history, to show how God was working out his purposes and his plans (largely ignoring how this was at the indigenous peoples' expense).

A Philosophy of history necessarily suppresses evidence. It presumes X is true, and if 97% of the data is like “No, X is not true,” they will find the 3% that is like “Yes, it is. The actual evidence for many of the claims is so scanty that data is replaced with bold assertion after bold assertion. Those who teach the Principle approach must appeal to the author's impeccable authority.

Now, Rose presents the American Christian method of Biblical reasoning, which places the truths of God's word at the center of every subject. When done poorly, this makes every class Sunday school. I know students in principle approach schools can resent it, just like kids in secular schools can get tired of every subject centered around the intersection of sex, gender, race, power, and systemic oppression. Some people actually want to learn math, or history--must every teacher have an axe to grind? But I know the Principle Approach is not necessarily at the cost of the subject matter, while it can work like a virus, overtaking the host and making it produce the one ideology, it can instead enrich and build up.

I am curious, though, how Biblical reasoning is understood. On one hand, the very concept of it being a Principle Approach is appealing. If by biblical reasoning, they mean taking a principle like "every individual has value and dignity and should be treated accordingly", it is then incumbent upon us to wrestle, in the present, with what it means to love someone and uphold their value. By engaging in this process, we are being "biblical" and engaging in biblical reasoning, even if we conclude that what is loving in a certain situation is at odds with the letter of scripture. If that is what is meant, then I am fine with it. However, if it is finding a verse, making it a categorical statement, and then reasoning from it now (with no mind for the situation), then I am not okay with it. That would be like finding the verse that commands the rapist to marry the woman he raped, pay the bride price to the father, and never divorce her. If that is considered Biblical truth, then it means today, if a man rapes a woman, we should expect him to marry her. That is simply biblical reasoning from the truth of God's word.

I get the impression some proponents of the Principle Approach seem to imbibe biblicism, which assumes the bible is the divine answer book and encyclopedia, full of timeless truth on every topic. As Christian Smith argues in the Bible Made Impossible, that is not the type of book the bible is, to assume this is the case is to completely misuse scripture.

I do like some of the principles, especially the first few. Though I take issue with the sectarian and tribal manner in which they are expressed. This fundamentalist attitude sees things in stark black and white, good and bad, and only American Christianity, as understood by James Rose, is good, and its goodness is to be demonstrated by contrasting it with the other--the pagan, heathen, secular. Amy-Jill Levin has pointed out how for 1000s of Years, Christians couldn't mention any positive element of Christianity without contrasting it with the Jews. The Jews were the example of all that is bad, and Christianity of all that is good. She points out how many of the good elements are also found in Judaism. While it is okay to celebrate some positives in Christianity, it needn't always be at the Jews' expense. So I would say the same with some of these principles, take self-government, for example. It talks as if only Christians can be self-governed, and if "pagans" are, it is this ugly and distorted parody. Uh... no... I believe that if we love our neighbor as ourselves, we are living in harmony with God (even if we have never even heard of Jesus), whereas if we fail to love our neighbor as ourselves, we are out of harmony with God, even if we are a Christian. Non-Christians can, at times, genuinely pursue the good and express pure love, and this fact should not be threatening to us! We may actually be able to better learn how to love others by paying attention to wise and decent people who are outside of our tribe. Evangelicals who want to remain exclusivists should at least realize that while they can assume they exclusively have the WHOLE picture, they can at least grant that those outside of their little group might at least have PART of the picture.
Failure to recognize this much can lead people to act in non-loving ways, as it leads to cynicism; believing the worst about the other; always interpreting every good, sincere, and loving action of non-Christians as being nefarious, and rooted in evil motives. We do not love our (non-Christian) neighbor by demonizing them and pretending they are totally depraved ...more "

Jul 29, 2025 04:30PM · see review

John Martindale is currently reading

The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration

by Anne Harrington

bookshelves: currently-reading

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

May 09, 2016 09:12PM

John Martindale is currently reading

The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth

by David Bentley Hart

bookshelves: currently-reading

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

John Martindale said: " It is foolish for me to try to write, I can't pretend to understand even half of what Hart wrote. But at risk of revealing how stupid I am, I'll mention my impressions so far. (I am now reading the chapter “Trinity”)
Hart seems to be responding to th It is foolish for me to try to write, I can't pretend to understand even half of what Hart wrote. But at risk of revealing how stupid I am, I'll mention my impressions so far. (I am now reading the chapter “Trinity”)
Hart seems to be responding to the Nietzschean critique of Christianity, that it is merely a violent struggle of power over others and the Christians concept of God's agape is thus a fiction. Part of the answer thus far is the Apatheia (impassibility) of God, Hart writes “The Trinity is already infinitely sufficient, infinitely “diverse”, infinitely at peace” Creation is therefore, an uncompelled and unnecessary act of pure generosity.
It is interesting reading this as an open-theist. Hart would say I don't believe in God, but a god who is in the process of becoming. For Hart, immutability, timelessness and impassibility are not optional. He mentions an attempt to reconcile a God who suffers and one who is dynamic within history, with the absolute Being of philosophy leads to the conclusion that all temporal becomings are infinitely part of God's timeless Being--which means that evil, since it is integral to the narrative of history (even if God ultimately triumphs over it) is part of God's very identity and Being, which is unacceptable to all but the most heartless Calvinist.
I am convinced that though the church fathers tried to mix the Greek snake oil with Hebrew holy water, that the two (The timeless, immutable and impassible God and the dynamic, passionate and active God of the scriptures) can never be amalgamated. Hart however believes that timelessness, immutability and impassibility don't contradict the story of God as creator, redeemer and consummator of all things, yet he has far from convinced me thus far how the two are not in conflict. In light of this, he wrote “Because God is Trinity, eternally, perfectly, without any need of negative probation or finite determination. God does not have to change of suffer in order to love us or show us mercy—he loved us when we were not, and by this very “mercy” created us – and so, as love, he can overcome all suffering” as I continued reading, I got to Hart's definition of Divine impassibility: “God's impassibility is the utter fullness of an infinite dynamism, the absolutely complete and replete generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit from the Father, the infinite “drama” of God's joyous act of self-outpouring –which is his being as God. Within the plenitude of this motion, no contrary motion can fabricate an interval of negation, because it is the infinite possibility of every creaturely motion or act; no pathos is possible for God because pathos is by definition, a finite instance of change visited upon a passive subject, actualizing some potential, whereas God's love is pure positivity and pure activity. His love is an infinite peace and so needs no violence to shape it, no death of which to triumph, if it did, it would never be ontological peace but only metaphysical armistice.
What? Dynamism, Drama, self-outpouring, plenitude of motion and pure activity as part of the definition of impassibility? Uhh.... and a hunk of granite is lighter than a feather and black is white, and water is not wet, ok... I must keep reading.... ...more "

Apr 15, 2016 08:30PM · see review

See all 5 books that John is reading…

John’s Quotes

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
― C.S. Lewis

16946 likes

“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

tags: love

20534 likes

“On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest idea what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. For the sleeping god may wake someday and take offense, or the waking god may draw us out to where we can never return. ”
― Annie Dillard

152 likes

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton

363 likes