A couple of days ago I learned that demonstration copies of the second edition of The Inescapable Love of God are in the process of being shipped to me. So, for those who have been writing and inquiring about when it will be available, it looks as if the long wait is almost over. Here is the latest information from Cascade Books, a division of Wipf and Stock, on its availability:
The Inescapable Love of God is ACTIVE and it will be available via:
W & S Customer Service: Immediately
Wipf and Stock: in 2 weeks
Amazon: in 6-8 weeks
Ingram: in 4 weeks
Although I am presently tied up with personal affairs, I hope to start a discussion soon on the whole issue of interpreting the Bible as a whole. Just what does this even mean, given the variety, the complexity, and the history of the various writings collected in it? Also, why is it that a simple farmer, so it seems to me, can sometimes read an English version of the Bible with greater spiritual insight than a first-rate scholar with expertise in the languages of the Bible and the historical background of its various documents? And finally, what inference should we draw from the fact that with respect to almost any major theological issue—the differences between Calvinists, Arminians, and universalists, for example—you can find first rate Bible scholars on both sides of the issue?
On a much lighter note, I thought I would here warn Cindy that on two or three occasions in the book I fall prey to one of her pet peeves; that is, I use the term “schizophrenic” in accordance with a long literary tradition that does not accord with contemporary psychiatric usage. Because a long-time friend of mine (who just recently died) battled schizophrenia for the better part of his life, I am well aware of how psychiatrists now use (or misuse?) this term. Indeed, a couple of decades ago a reviewer of a paper of mine suggested that I remove this term from the paper, which I refused to do. For as I pointed out at the time, the Latin literally means schizo (split) phrenia (mind), and the psychiatric condition now labeled as schizophrenia was formerly called “dementia praecox.” I saw no reason, therefore, why the more normal use of the term should be held hostage by an evolving technical use of the same term within a given profession.
I bring this up because Cindy and I seem unable to disagree on any important theological issue. So when she shared a while ago her pet peeve concerning a common use of the term “schizophrenic,” I thought to myself: “That’s great; we can at least disagree on a relatively trivial point of linguistic usage!” And for several months now, I have been waiting for an appropriate opportunity to explain my own view on the matter. Hee. Hee.
-Tom
