Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Calvinism, edited by David Allen and Steve Lemke, is scheduled for release by Broadman & Holman on April 15, 2010. The book presents an expanded format of the addresses presented at the John 3:16 Conference held at the First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia, in November 2008.
After a foreword by Johnny Hunt, pastor of FBC Woodstock, and an introduction by Dr. James Leo Garrett, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the first section of the work contains the following edited presentations:
- Jerry Vines (Director, Jerry Vines Ministries) on the soteriological implications of John 3:16
- Paige Patterson (President, SWBTS) critiques Total Depravity
- Richard Land (President, SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission) critiques Unconditional Election
- David Allen (Dean, SWBTS School of Theology) critiques Particular Redemption
- Steve Lemke (Professor, Philosophy & Ethics, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary) critiques Overcoming Grace
- Ken Keathley (Dean, Graduate Studies, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) critiques Perseverance of the Saints.
In the second section, five new chapters are included on theological and pastoral issues arising from the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate. The following presentations are included:
- Kevin Kennedy (Assistant Professor, Theology, SWBTS) addresses whether or not John Calvin taught Particular Redemption
- Malcolm Yarnell (Associate Professor, Systematic Theology, SWBTS) addresses ecclesiological issues
- R. Alan Streett (Professor, Evangelism & Pastoral Ministry, Criswell College) addresses the issue of altar calls
- Jeremy Evans (Assistant Professor, Philosophy, SEBTS) addresses determinism
- Bruce Little (Professor, Philosophy, SEBTS) addresses the problem of evil
The editors declare one of the reasons for this work is that “most recent books published on this topic have been from the Calvinist perspective, not the traditional Baptist perspective.” In addition to this, they assert “the gatekeepers” of ‘Calvinism’ “are virtually all fivepointers.” They imply those who affirm particular redemption are extreme in their view, and that the nature and extent of the atonement has been debated since before the Synod of Dort. They state, “Whosoever Will responds to a strong resurgent five-point Calvinism that is being presented in a more definitive and compelling way than it has been in past centuries.”
I generally disagree with 99% of the things articulated by atheist and anti-theist Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens’ 2007 book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, has made him the nation’s most notorious atheist. Renowned as a political columnist for Vanity Fair, Slate, and other publications, his manifesto against religion has earned him debates across the nation. As a precursor to his January 5th appearance at the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall, Portland Monthly invited Hitchens to a conversation with a liberal theist—Marilyn Sewell, the recently retired minister of the First Unitarian Church of Portland, Oregon. A former teacher, psychotherapist and author of several works, Ms. Sewell led Portland’s Unitarian group for over 17 years and helped it to become one of the largest in the United States. This edition of Theology on Thursday includes a brief portion of that interview. Ms. Sewell stated and inquired:
The religion you cite in your books is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make a distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Hitchens replied:
I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
I agree strongly with this statement from Hitchens. If you don’t believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, died upon a cross for our sins, and rose again from the dead, you’re not really a Christian in any meaningful sense.
HT: Scot McKnight
The Rev. Peter Imasuen, the Anglican bishop of Benin City, in Edo state, Nigeria, was kidnapped Sunday, January 24, following a worship service. Rev. Imasuen was ambushed and seized as he arrived home from the church service. Kidnappers are demanding 15 million Naira ($100,000 USD). The bishop’s abduction comes after a week of clashing between Muslims and Christians left almost 500 dead in and around the central city of Jos.
Please pray for Rev. Imasuen’s faith to remain strong, for him to witness boldly and compassionately to his abductors, and for his safe return.
HT: The Christian Post / CANA
This past week Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma, posted a bit about Christian civility and love. The text for the post came from Dr. Molly Marshall, a former professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the current president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. While it was off topic, I commented, “Too bad Dr. Marshall believes, ‘One can be saved without knowing of, or believing in, Jesus Christ.’ At least, that is, if she still holds to the same theology she did when she wrote her dissertation.” Pastor Burleson responded, “Rev, Why don’t you call Dr. Marshall and ask her? Or, place the relevant quotes in her public dissertation here. The truth is, you believe the same thing. Infants who die in infancy have no knowledge of, or faith in, Jesus Christ — but surely you believe they are in heaven, right? My point is, one must be careful in making assertions of what others believe without placing those beliefs in proper context.”
The reason I made the statement, and to which I explained to Pastor Burleson, is that to my knowledge, Dr. Marshall has never renounced her long-standing view that adherents of non-Christian religions do not need to place explicit faith in Jesus Christ in order to be justified. Her book, No Salvation Outside the Church? A Critical Inquiry, is based upon her doctoral dissertation. It articulates her pluralistic viewpoints quite clearly. I informed the pastor I saw no point in calling her “since there have been no public retractions and since she criticizes those like me who approach a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu as someone who is condemned apart from Christ.” In addition to this, I explained the assertion that I “believe the same thing,” is really quite ludicrous.
I believe, as the Baptist Confession (1689) declares, “Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” But I believe, and what the 2LBC is pointing out, is that these are extraordinary cases, not ordinary ones. This is much different than the “anonymous Christian” type theology expounded by Karl Rahner and which Dr. Marshall advocates.
As a minister, I’ve often been asked, “What happens to the poor innocent native in Africa who has never heard the gospel? Will he or she go to Hell when he or she dies?” I generally reply with a question of my own. “Are there any innocent natives in Africa?” In fact, Anna A, a commenter, inquired, “Some of this conversation seems to be about Dr. Marshall’s theology, and I have a related question. Thank you, in advance. Do you believe that God has a way for those people, who through no fault of their own have never heard anything about Jesus the Christ, to be with Him after death?” I answered, “You have asked a very important question. The Apostle Paul makes it plain in Romans 1-3 that the entire world, without exception, is guilty before God. All have sinned, that is, everyone has rebelled against God’s commands. The penalty for this rebellion is death and condemnation. The remedy provided by God to overcome this breach in the relationship between God and humanity is the work of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Gospel. The Apostle Paul discusses this remedy in Romans 4-5. Later in this epistle (Rom 10), St. Paul makes it plain that individuals must hear the gospel in order to respond to God’s invitation. Those who do not hear the gospel are guilty before God and worthy of condemnation, not because they have not heard, but because they have rejected the revelation God has given to them in creation (Rom 1).”
What I’ve found interesting in the comment thread is that my contention of upholding historic Christian orthodoxy on this position is branded as the “shallowness and arrogance of the reformed” which is “downright silly and illogical.” Fortunately, Pastor Burleson stated, “Were your assessments of Molly Marshall’s doctrinal position found to be accurate, I would unequicovally disagree with her view.” It seems that many who read the pastor’s blog, however, do not.
Led by the community officials of Los llanos in San Juan Chamula, Chiapas, Mexico, a mob of approximately 200 traditionalist Roman Catholics armed themselves with clubs, crowbars, and hammers on January 13 and destroyed 13 homes belonging to evangelical Christians. Over 50 men, women, and children were left homeless and exposed to the highland region’s frigid temperatures. The evangelicals refused to renounce their religious beliefs and support the anti-government National Zapatista Liberation Army (EZLN) rebels despite insistence from the traditionalists. The traditionalists practice a combination of indigenous ritual and Roman Catholicism, and have pressured the evangelicals for years to support the local festivals financially. They ordered the evangelicals to leave the community on September 24, 2009.
Please pray for God to provide for the families who lost their homes and possessions, and for the authorities to intervene in the continuing attacks against evangelicals in Chiapas.
It was my privilege to meet the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon several years ago, and to hear him teach on several occasions on matters related to the Christian faith. Born in Yorkshire, England, October 25, 1939, he was a graduate of King’s College, London, and Christ Church, Oxford, with a Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford (D.Phil.). Ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1973, he taught theology in both the United Kingdom and the United States, and was also a visiting professor and guest lecturer at a variety of seminaries and universities in Asia, Europe, and Australia. Dr. Toon was a recent past-President of the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A., prior to his death on April 25, 2009. The author of several books, Dr. Toon penned The Anglican Way: Evangelical and Catholic, published by Morehouse-Barlow Co., Inc., in 1983. Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday is an excerpt from this work, considering what it means to be Catholic and Reformed (from the perspective of an Anglican).
To affirm Catholicity means that we cannot be too selective in the way in which we look back to evaluate the long experience of the Church of God. A fault of most Protestant denominations has been, and remains, that of working from a limited perspective, choosing this and rejecting that. We are to accept the broad and sustained themes of Catholicity and to reject deviant and exaggerated developments and expressions.
When the reformers of the Church of England in the mid-sixteenth century attempted ‘to wash the dirty face’ of the national Church, they recognized and made a part of the Church’s reformed existence the following catholic emphases.
1. The priority and authority of the Scriptures as the source of our knowledge of God.
2. The doctrinal guidance of the Catholic Creeds-Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian (Quicunque Vult).
3. The truth that salvation is, in the final analysis, the gift of God and by grace alone.
4. The use of Liturgy, which is faithful to Scripture and embodies the experience of the Church in worship over the centuries.
5. The historic episcopate or the order of bishops as a sign of the unity of the one Church of God. Unlike Scottish and Continental reformers, who ditched episcopacy because they saw it as too involved in the corruption which they knew must be removed, the English reformers insisted on the retention of the historic order of bishops.
6. The threefold ordained ministry of bishop, presbyter (= priest) and deacon, as that ministry which God has led the Church to adopt from primitive times.
7. The two Gospel sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion as instituted by Christ for regular use in the Church.
8. The unity of the ministry of the Word and Sacrament in the service of Holy Communion.
9. The need for regular preaching and teaching from the Scriptures.
10. The recognition that the visible unity of the Church on earth is God’s will.
11. The need for a regularly reviewed canon law and moral theology.
12. The priesthood of the whole Church as a worshipping and praying society.
The approach, which these emphases reflect, was called ‘reformed catholicity’.
Because of the particular historical circumstances of the sixteenth century, the affirmation of reformed Catholicity meant the denial of the excessive claims of the Papacy and the repudiation of certain medieval doctrines – in particular, the medieval dogma of transubstantiation (that the whole bread becomes the true body of Christ and that the whole wine becomes the true blood of Christ). A careful study of the formularies of the Church of England will reveal how reformed Catholicity was expressed. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion state the faithfulness of the Church of England to Scripture and true Catholic tradition. The Book of Homilies illustrates in sermon form what reformed Catholicity means for people in the pews. The Book of Common Prayer provides services of worship which teach Scriptural doctrines through revised, traditional forms, and the Ordinal contains services for the consecration of a bishop, the ordination of a priest and the making of a deacon.
The Catholicity claimed by the Church of England (and therefore by the Anglican Communion) is rightly called a ‘reformed Catholicity’ in contrast to what may be called a late medieval corrupted Catholicity. It was reformed because its roots were deep in the Scriptures and the experience of the Church of the first five centuries. By 1559, the year of the Elizabeth Settlement, the Church of England was not a new Church (whose origins lay in the legislation of Henry VIII), but a renewed, revitalized, reformed Church, wholly committed to its position in the continuing historical existence of the Church of God in England (whose origins reached back to the ancient Celtic Church). Of course, it was not a perfect Church; it was, however, moving in the right direction.
Because the Church of England was attempting to be gospel-centered, it is also appropriate to call the Church of England a Protestant Church (and so to call the American Church the ‘Protestant Episcopal Church’). This is because the meaning of ‘Protestant’ in England from 1530 until at least 1640 included the designation of catholic. ‘Protestant’ comes from the ‘Protestation’ drawn up by a minority at the Second Diet of Spires (1529) in Germany. Part of this statement is as follows: ‘We are determined by God’s grace and aid to abide by God’s Word alone, the Holy Gospel contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testaments. This Word alone should be preached, and nothing that is contrary to it. It is the only Truth. It is the sure rule of all Christian doctrine and conduct. It can never fail us or deceive us. Whosoever builds and abides on this foundation shall stand against all the gates of hell, while all merely human additions and vanities set up against it must fall before the presence of God.’ The Protestation (from to protest = to make a solemn declaration) is a solemn declaration of faithfulness to the Gospel, written in Scripture, as the final court of appeal in the Church of God. Only in a secondary sense did Protestant mean a protest against the errors supported and encouraged by the Papacy. In essence, Protestantism is an appeal to the Lord Jesus, to Scripture, and to the early, patristic Church, against all later degeneration, error and apostasy. In this sense the Anglican Communion must be Protestant. Regrettably, however, the negative meaning of Protestant appears to have triumphed in the common understanding, and so today the word ‘Protestant’ is seen as one who is against Roman Catholicism. Therefore, if as Anglicans we are going to use the word ‘Protestant’, let us use it as meaning ‘committed to genuine Catholicity’.
In Anglicanism we have long held that to maintain a genuine Catholicity (and to be truly Protestant) we need to be guided by Scripture, tradition and reason (in that order). The historical, continuing Church is the guardian and translator of the sacred Scriptures, but since the latter are the record of God’s revelation to mankind, they stand always as the judge and guide of the Church as she is led by the Spirit of her exalted Lord. So the Bible must be the final authority in matters of faith and conduct. Yet this holy book has to be interpreted, understood and used in the life of the Church. It is here that tradition helps for it brings to us the experience of the catholic Church over the centuries (and before and after the Reformation). Tradition is that wealth of experience contained in written and unwritten sources which are passed on from generation to generation. It includes the way in which the Bible has been understood and put into practice in all kinds of activity and in various written forms (e.g. creeds, liturgies, canon law, theology and devotional books).
The place of reason (as it is illuminated by the Holy Spirit) is to look at Scripture in the light of the ethos and content of the catholic tradition and with questions arising from a particular society and culture. Thus decisions of a theological, moral, spiritual, political and economic nature are made on this solid basis. The human mind and conscience is fully informed before action is taken.
The stream of tradition which is ours to receive is deeper and longer than that which was received by the reformers of the Church of England in the sixteenth century. We have the experience of a divided Christendom, and its various minor streams, to receive and examine. Thus, for example, we are made aware of such matters as the possibilities of freedom in worship, of the ministry of the whole laity of God, of the world mission of the Church, and of our social calling as Christians in the modern world. Further, the questions raised by our increasingly technologically-based society become more difficult, not only in the field of medicine but in most areas of human development and growth.
Facing our complex society with Christian eyes, it would be wrong to abandon the classic approach of looking to Scripture with the help of tradition in the light of reason. Such a procedure preserves us from excessive individualism and where it does not easily lead to an answer to a modern, urgent question, at least it sets a good context for a Christian approach to an answer. Sometimes it will be painful to make decisions and sometimes wrong answers will be found. An example of a problematic question is that of whether a woman should be free to be ordained priest and consecrated bishop. Here we have the situation of tradition speaking with a strong voice in the negative, and reason finding it difficult to find any solid reasons why a woman should not be a candidate for, or called to, such an office in the Church of God. Regrettably the Anglican Communion has not moved as one body in answering this question and thus, when we do achieve a consensus of what is the will of Christ, there will be need for reconciliation within the Church.
Because Anglicanism has followed the appeal to Scripture, tradition and reason, it has been committed also to the creative concept and practice of comprehensiveness. Rightly understood, comprehensiveness is not the acceptance of a ragbag of assorted views and practices. It is not the expression of the principle that theological relativism is inescapable or even a good thing – i.e. that each of us does their own thing because there is not one truth to which we all ought to be committed.
Comprehensiveness is unity in fundamentals with the recognition in secondary matters, especially rites and ceremonies, that there can be differences of opinion and interpretation. The fundamentals are those found in the catholic Creeds and those presupposed in the Liturgy. So people belonging to different schools of Anglican interpretation (e.g. Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic and Latitudinarian) have been agreed on basics and in the use of a common form of Liturgy. Low Church, High Church and Broad Church have existed alongside each other and often overlapped with each other.
Recently the honored principle of comprehensiveness has been severely threatened by the appearance of radical theologians who provide interpretations of Christianity totally out of harmony with earlier interpretations. The old Latitudinarians did not deny the fundamentals of Trinitarian Faith, but claimed the right to explore areas around the center or essence of that Faith, and also to study the implications of the Faith with respect to new forms of learning. With the modern ‘liberals’ (better ‘radicals’) we have the arrival of people who deny the fundamentals. Not only is there the enthusiastic rejection by them of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the true deity of our Lord, but there is also a rejection of the authority of the primary and unique witness to Jesus provided in the gospels and epistles of the New Testament. They propose what they think are not merely novel but actually superior ways of thinking of Jesus and his place in history and in the search for salvation. They complain that recent liturgical revision within the Anglican Communion has not taken account of ‘modern’ theology. We reply that the Liturgy is based on a doctrinal foundation that has been tested and tried over the centuries and is as applicable today as it was yesterday.
Let us be frank. There is no room within the true comprehensiveness of Anglicanism for people to act as our theologians, teachers and priests who continue to deny the fundamentals of the Faith as they have been received, believed, taught and confessed over the centuries. There can be and should be new ways of expressing old truths; but this is a very different activity to the actual denial of old truths and the proposing of new ones. The Incarnation is in no sense a myth and if we lose our belief that the eternal Son of God genuinely assumed our human nature and flesh, then we also lose the authentic Christian Faith. And if God incarnate disappears, so also does true salvation. We need our bishops to lead us in joyful commitment to the genuine Faith. Our liturgies, old and new, do preserve and commend the genuine article! For this we thank God.
One beneficial result of the arrival of the radicals has been the closer cooperation of members of the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic schools of thought. They (together with others of ‘no school’) have united in defence of the received fundamentals which are derived from divine Revelation. This gives some impetus to the adoption of the vision that Anglicanism becomes simultaneously wholly committed to the Evangel and to Catholicity. It also provides some hope that our radical friends will eventually submit to the authentic Faith and not use the Church as the society and place in which to offer their latest and ‘brightest’ thoughts. We do not want to drive them from worship and sharing in the life of the people of God. We want them to submit with us to the Lord Jesus and to serve him together. But, until they return to belief in the fundamentals, we cannot see how they can be allowed to preach in our pulpits and to lecture to ordinands in our seminaries.
True Catholicity or reformed Catholicity requires genuine unity without uniformity. Comprehensiveness refers to that unity functioning without uniformity. Since most Anglican Churches now have a variety of liturgies, we are already gaining experience in terms of worship of what unity without uniformity can mean. When we become wholly evangelical and wholly catholic we shall understand it even better!
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has declared Punxsutawney Phil is being treated poorly due to the crowd conditions at the annual Groundhog Day festival held annually in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Gemma Vaughan, the Animals in Entertainment specialist for PETA, wrote a letter to event organizers suggesting that “animatronic animals” be utilized instead of a live groundhog. According to folk tradition, if Phil sees his shadow when he comes out of his burrow on February 2, there will be six more weeks of harsh winter. Vaughan didn’t inform organizers how one would be able to tell how an inanimate object could predict the weather, however.
The President of the Inner Circle of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club, Bill Deeley, replied that Phil is “being treated better than the average child in Pennsylvania.” He noted the groundhog is sheltered in a climate-controlled environment and is inspected annually by the Department of Agriculture.
You may call me critical, say I’m unconcerned about being “relevant” in order to reach the lost or such, but here are a few reasons I find it more and more difficult each day to remain within the “free church tradition”:
1) Whiskey Baptists
Does the singing of this early 90s Country & Western song cause one to think of Christ and His redeeming love? Do large foam hats convey the holiness and majesty of God? Doesn’t this song, employed during a worship service, seem to contradict what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians?:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (1 Cor. 5:9-11)
2) Clown Communion
This gives a whole new meaning to the term “Clown Ministry.” The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11:23-26)
3) Motor “cross”
Notice references to “stage” and “set.” Sounds like a theater rather than a sanctuary, doesn’t it? Wonder how many individuals, viewing this, would find their hearts exclaiming with the cherubim and the prophet Isaiah:
…I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Isaiah 6:1-5)
4) Spiritual Gifts, Temper Tantrums and Wedgies
Forget the drama of redemption, when you can have second-rate skits about spiritual gifts, filled with temper tantrums and “wedgies.”
Guess I’m getting old, but it seems to me like these are examples of worship in spirit and in truth:
It seems to me that worship should reflect that which takes place before the Throne in Heaven, that which is described by the Apostle John in Revelation 4:
After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald. Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads. From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.
And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight. And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say,
“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives forever and ever. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying, “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
Sometimes it is best to meditate upon a brief quote. Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday provides a brief quote for meditation from J. C. Ryle, the evangelical stalwart who served within the Anglican fold during the 19th century. Contemplating health and wealth, Ryle stated:
It is a melancholy fact, that constant temporal prosperity, as a general rule, is injurious to a believer’s soul. We cannot stand it. Sickness, and losses, and crosses, and anxieties, and disappointments seem absolutely needful to keep us humble, watchful, and spiritual-minded.
According to an equation devised by Dr. Cliff Arnall, a British researcher from Cardiff University, today (January 18) will be the most depressing day of the year. His formula considers factors such as post-holiday melancholy, failed New Year’s resolutions, debt, and winter weather. Research indicates new prescriptions for antidepressants peak around Thanksgiving, yet suicide rates are highest in the spring (April).
Michael Terman, Ph.D., director of the Center for Light Treatment and Biological Rhythms at Columbia University Medical Center, states, “Most people with winter depression feel fatigued during the day, have difficulty getting out of bed in time for work, and start snacking—or even gobbling—carbohydrates. But that can also happen with nonseasonal depression. Seasonal or not, we usually see reduced work performance and concentration, reluctance to engage socially…underlying anxiety, not to mention despair.” He adds, “Some people with depression—whether seasonal or nonseasonal—experience insomnia, reduced appetite, and agitation more than lethargy. All taken together, it’s not so much the symptoms that differ but rather the timing. In one sardonic sense, you’re ‘lucky’ if you have seasonal rather than nonseasonal depression, because you can be confident about when you’ll feel better!”
Depression during winter, technically a form of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), generally occurs between November and April. Terman says, “You may be more likely to attribute depressed mood to work stress than to seasonal change. The seasonal pattern can get complicated: There are cases when nonseasonal depression turns seasonal and vice versa.” It is unknown why suicides are more common in April. It is believed proper nutrition, adequate sleep, regular exercise, and time with family offset factors causing depression. Unfortunately, current research doesn’t include a holistic approach to human beings, which would include spirituality.
