There is much to commend about this book, which is the latest ‘revolutionary’ book in Christian stores. The taglines on the cover promise a ‘revolution’ in our spirituality. However, we should be skeptical whenever a new book is put out there as ‘the secret to the Christian life.’ This sounds like gnosticism. Christ, in all his fullness, is what we really need, and no amount of ‘emotionally healthy spirituality’ will take us to a new level, apart from the work of Christ.
My impression is that this book came as a shock for many people. They never figured that spirituality and emotionality had anything to do with each other. Scazzero certainly argues persuasively against such a misunderstanding. Even more, he shows that emotional health is part of spiritual health, and that you can’t have one without the other. So, his sections on learning to ‘feel’ real emotions (instead of supressing them), and facing conflict (instead of avoiding it) are golden.
However, the one major problem with this book is that the emotional health commended is not that healthy, or spiritually sound. The book provides guidance without the power of the gospel dynamic. Afterall, how can we have the strength to pursue health? Who gives it? Is it merely acheived by trying harder? "Feeling" more, more often? Such counsel makes a self-righteousness out of being able to "feel."
The latter half of the book devolved into techniques which smacked of a legalistic program. Judging from the quotes and references, a lot of the inspiration for this ‘program’ came from the monastics. The monastics do have things to teach us (for example, the importance of solitude), but the reformers were right to be suspicious of the monastic movement as a whole. As I read on, I got the feeling that I was being constrained, that the air was stuffy – that this book was not the ‘secret’ to emotional health. I got the feeling that the real secret was in the book's title, not in it's content. That secret? This book is not what it claims to be.
The book acknowledges, though not sufficiently, that the monastic lifestyle is not possible for everyone. Still, it glorifies that lifestyle, and I fear that many people will leave with a sense of guilt because they cannot be monks.
Finally, I'm wary of the terminology of 'emotional/emotionally.' This orbits outside the Biblical world into Freud's alternate galaxy. Such an approach breaks man down into constituent parts (emotions, intellect, will, etc) in an unnatural way. Such an approach ignores the unity of a person.
Finally, if this topic interests you, the right, and much more healthy approach, can be found in Jonathan Edward's Religious Affections.
My impression is that this book came as a shock for many people. They never figured that spirituality and emotionality had anything to do with each other. Scazzero certainly argues persuasively against such a misunderstanding. Even more, he shows that emotional health is part of spiritual health, and that you can’t have one without the other. So, his sections on learning to ‘feel’ real emotions (instead of supressing them), and facing conflict (instead of avoiding it) are golden.
However, the one major problem with this book is that the emotional health commended is not that healthy, or spiritually sound. The book provides guidance without the power of the gospel dynamic. Afterall, how can we have the strength to pursue health? Who gives it? Is it merely acheived by trying harder? "Feeling" more, more often? Such counsel makes a self-righteousness out of being able to "feel."
The latter half of the book devolved into techniques which smacked of a legalistic program. Judging from the quotes and references, a lot of the inspiration for this ‘program’ came from the monastics. The monastics do have things to teach us (for example, the importance of solitude), but the reformers were right to be suspicious of the monastic movement as a whole. As I read on, I got the feeling that I was being constrained, that the air was stuffy – that this book was not the ‘secret’ to emotional health. I got the feeling that the real secret was in the book's title, not in it's content. That secret? This book is not what it claims to be.
The book acknowledges, though not sufficiently, that the monastic lifestyle is not possible for everyone. Still, it glorifies that lifestyle, and I fear that many people will leave with a sense of guilt because they cannot be monks.
Finally, I'm wary of the terminology of 'emotional/emotionally.' This orbits outside the Biblical world into Freud's alternate galaxy. Such an approach breaks man down into constituent parts (emotions, intellect, will, etc) in an unnatural way. Such an approach ignores the unity of a person.
Finally, if this topic interests you, the right, and much more healthy approach, can be found in Jonathan Edward's Religious Affections.
No comments:
Post a Comment