Modeling God, a kind of self-help/theology book by inventor and entrepreneur J.G. Lenhart, is nothing if not ambitious. Its “God Model” is a set of spiritual principles that supposedly define God’s nature completely and guarantee followers perfect harmony with the Almighty and with other men.
As you might guess, the book doesn’t fulfill these breathtaking claims—not even close. Its philosophy is extra-Biblical and subversive; bogus is not too strong a word. Unfortunately, it has been a troubling influence on some readers and needs to be taken seriously.
The premise is that God operates exclusively by certain principles, of which the most fundamental is the preservation of justice. But Lenhart isn’t really saying that justice is an attribute of God, which is not controversial. Lenhart’s actually using his concept of justice to define God. Initially benign platitudes are pushed to logical extremes, without any qualification.
This reduces God to a depersonalized abstraction, governed by Lenhart’s principles which he practically regards as scientific law. God cannot have free will, for example, because He can only act according to “justice.“ And this conception of justice is ridiculously concrete: a cosmic currency that cannot be created or destroyed, only traded between God and man according to certain rules. Prayer becomes a crude transaction of spiritual “value” that man cannot receive from God unless it is “justly” earned.
Lenhart makes many other disturbing assertions. For example, whether you are saved depends only upon whether you’re growing spiritually closer to, or further from God at the instant of death. Being born again is irrelevant, like any other doctrine Lenhart can’t reconcile with his supposedly clear-cut, universal rules.
We’re supposed to believe this “God Model” because it explains the spiritual universe without contradicting itself. But this spin obscures a huge fallacy: Lenhart “proves” his model by showing it satisfies his preset conditions, but provides no good reason to accept his conditions in the first place. What’s the point of internal consistency if there is no external validity?
Take Lenhart’s definitions of key words, which are crucial to his arguments. Life is “the ability to repair.” Sin is “anything we do that does not look Long Term.” Can such peculiar definitions possibly express the entire spiritual truth, for every circumstance, behind these words? Modeling God requires us to accept this. Bible verses are also interpreted narrowly, ignoring their context and multiple levels of meaning.
Without solid Biblical or even philosophical anchors, Modeling God’s core arguments sound logical but end up unmoored from reality. Lenhart also says things that don’t even fit into his own twisted context, such as the bizarre notion that praying for a person’s salvation is “witchcraft” if done against his or her will. The book concludes with even weirder exhortations to discover something called your “physical ARE.” By this point, even the pretense of Biblical foundation has been abandoned.
The reason Modeling God deserves such criticism is its incredibly arrogant tone. Lenhart considers his ideas a revolutionary improvement in Christian theology and doesn’t hesitate to label traditional doctrines wrong. “These principles can instantly find the flaw in every belief system,” he proclaims. “Throughout history, every error could have been prevented if these principles were followed completely.” Seriously? The Bible itself doesn’t make such simplistic, smug claims.
Ultimately, this book will have you consider: just because a theory is logical and elegant, does that make it true? Lenhart wants us to reject other theologies if they contain any apparent inconsistency, but his contrived reductionism diminishes God and inflates human wisdom. The study of Scripture and sound doctrine, acknowledging our limitations and God’s infinite complexity: this may not yield answers as definite as the ones Modeling God advertises, but it will bring us much closer to the truth.
Note: An excellent, detailed summary and rebuttal of this book can be found at http://modelinggodheresy.com
Filed under: reviews | Tagged: heresy, J.G. Lenhart, Modeletics, Modeling God, philosophy, review, theology
thanks for the clarity on modeling God — the very title which should already put readers on guard. sounds like a frighteningly malignant reaction to the post-modern/relativism that plagued society and the Church herself in recent years from which we are now swinging some towards “neo-calvinism” and now this. isn’t it a tragic human condition to be tossed here and there by every wind of doctrine? alas, this what it means to be human when we are not squarely anchored in Christ Jesus Whom knows no shifting…
The author of this critique has done a great job! As the writer of the longer critique linked at the bottom of the above review, I give my hearty “Amen!!” You have done a thorough, pointed, and accurate analysis of this heretical book. I especially liked your analysis of the way Lenhart conceptualizes Justice in a way that results in this abstract notion ruling God and ultimately depersonalizing him. You also did a great job summarizing the fallacious nature of Lenhart’s argumentation where he relies on “non-contradiction” itself to be the arbiter of truth, rather than the scripture. These were the highlights for me, but every part was good. Thank you for posting this timely, accurate, and hard-hitting critique.
Hello, I’m a 23 yr. old male in Chicago, IL. I have been talking about the principles in Modeling God with a man around 50 years old on and off for the last 90 days. Whenever I’ve brought up the book Modeling God he tends to get defensive and whenever I talk about the principles in relation to my story his guard is down and loves it! This past weekend I learned something huge from him…
He was clearly apart of the Jesus movement and has taught me a lot about how important our “story” is and how important relationships are…I realized in the same way he, and many people in his generation, are touched by emotional connections and hearing about the weakness and humbleness of christians, that that has caused my generation to grow up questioning who was acting and who was for real. In the same way that he had felt God in a very real way through talking about the pain in someone’s story and how the story of Jesus brought them through to be redeemed, I realized that me, and much of my generation, are also touched in a very real way, but in much more through God making sense. We as humans are more than just emotional and more than just Intellectual, we’re actually, mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical. No one part of use should be more or less…shouldn’t we be pushing into God in all of those areas? If the pendulum continues to swing, then my children will wonder if christians are ever emotional and gravitate towards and emotional connection with God.
My questions to you is HOW? HOW do you balance?
It’s interesting seeing the connect between a Manhattan Blog and a Wisconsin Pastor. In some way I almost feel responsible. I had lived in Brooklyn, NY, for about a year and learned a lot about what I believe and why. Much of what I learned was through trying to teach a few friends of mine what I had learned in Modeling God. It was an exciting time to feel like God could make sense…i wanted to tell everyone! The hard part was HOW i attempted telling others what I had discovered. I was overzealous and so excited that I came off arrogant and proud. To this day I wish I could go back and change HOW i tried to explain what I believed. I ended up getting “removed from my community” the day before I left the city. Unfortunately my best friend that I had been teaching what I believe was left to feel the displaced pain. She lost all of her friends and was removed from the community as well. I fear that HOW i communicated what i believed may have been part of the cause.
Is it possible that the teaching is Modeling God are biblical but how it was communicated came off arrogant and heretical? Maybe it was the terminology?
Have either of you (Tim and Author of Post) approached Lenhart via Matthew 18?
Sincerely
Nathaniel W. Swokowski
Nathaniel, thanks for offering your perspective on “Modeling God.” I appreciate what you’re saying about the need for Christians to appreciate all the ways God enriches our being. And because no individual can fully explain the breadth and depth of God, it’s important to remain respectful when criticizing those with whom we disagree, such as the author of this book. I hope that despite my sharp criticism, I held myself to that standard. I certainly do not wish to impugn the sincerity or the motivations of Mr. Lenhart in writing this book.
Still, I am convinced that “Modeling God” contradicts tried and true understandings of Biblical faith, which is why I wrote this review. Since it’s a published, freely available book, I felt it was appropriate for me to respond in this manner. Of course, my critiques can themselves be critiqued, and I am certainly open to further discussion with you or even Mr. Lenhart himself.
I agree most of all with your concluding sentiment: that it isn’t only about whether one’s ideas are correct, but also the way we present those ideas to others. You ask if it’s possible that the real problem with Modeling God isn’t that it’s un-Biblical, but that it was written in an arrogant way. Though we may not agree on whether it is Biblical, it seems we can agree that the haughty manner in which its ideas were presented made it even more difficult for some readers to swallow.
Again, thanks for writing, and may we all be blessed as we seek to know God more fully.
YOU WROTE “Of course, my critiques can themselves be critiqued, and I am certainly open to further discussion with you or even Mr. Lenhart himself.”
I encourage you get in contact with Mr. Lenhart and follows Matthew 18. Go to a brother!
YOU WROTE “Though we may not agree on whether it is Biblical, it seems we can agree that the haughty manner in which its ideas were presented made it even more difficult for some readers to swallow.”
I ACTUALLY WROTE “Is it possible that the teaching is Modeling God are biblical but how it was communicated came off arrogant and heretical? Maybe it was the terminology?”
I never stated nor am I stating now that I agree or believe that Modeling God is presented in a “haughty” manner nor “difficult to swallow.” I asked a question if Modeling God “CAME OFF” arrogant and heretical…meaning that’s how you felt when reading it? Have you ever been rebuked by someone when you were wrong, but at first you defended and justified yourself? Did you feel like they were arrogant for rebuking you? Do you think that just as you took my words and twisted them that maybe you have done the same while reading Modeling God. It’s interesting to see how people’s brains work…especially when it’s in writing.
Do you believe God told you to write this post? And if so do you believe he would have you write it before going to Lenhart? Matthew 18. Because the book is published does that make it ok to not do the Matthew 18 process of going to a brother first?
-nathaniel
Hey nathaniel,
Your stated that you were “overzealous and so excited that I came off arrogant and proud.”
So was your last posting.
Dan