Thoughts on DEI Training

So this week I went through the dreaded DEI training from HR, at your typical big corporate/public institution.

Here are some takeaways.

1. There was no overt hostility to Christians or conservatives in the program.

2. There was no insistence that you pledge personal allegiance to their dogma, besides giving “right” answers to vague and obvious questions.  (“Should you be okay with a racial insult or should you say something?”)

3. There IS an assumption that underprivileged groups are the only ones discriminated against.  This is a huge blind spot in the DEI/Left community right now.  They simply cannot see that their over-reaction to making sure minorities are not oppressed, winds up oppressing the majority.  Reverse discrimination is not a possibility in their minds, but it is obviously real.  If a black woman accuses a white man falsely, and she is assumed to be truthful because of group identity and history, that IS oppression of the white man.  Justice should be blind and impartial.  But what I was taught was all one-sided.  The majority needs to walk on egg shells to make sure they don’t offend any minority.  Now, of course, everyone should be sensitive to everyone.  But everyone also has a responsibility to strive not to take offense at “micro-aggressions.”

4. One spot was especially egregious – the assertion that a minority person offended does not have to accept an apology or any remedial action from the offender.  The implication was, they have the right to simply stay offended and keep the offender in condemnation and contempt.  Yikes.


Overall, this is a mixed bag.  There are naïve and innocent people trying to keep people being nice to each other, after the racism in our past.  And there are more devious elements sneaking in Marxist assumptions, which divides us according to group and class, undermining social cohesion, right when the former group thinks they are bolstering it.

Christian Nationalism

World Magazine's latest issue has a cover story on Christian Nationalism.
It's quite good, featuring most of the main players and critics.  

It points out how the Left wants to paint the Right all as nationalists, to energize the Left to vote against the Handmaiden's Tale vision in their heads.  

It points out Christian Nationalists aren't aiming for that vision.  

But it does point to problems, especially in Stephen Wolfe's book, the main catalyst of the discussion right now.

Wilsonites and Canon Press won't like being called a "tiny fringe," but they are.  Most Christian conservatives who are politically engaged do not share the "Moscow Mood."  I think Wilson has an important point to contribute (see next paragraph), but Moscow's messaging often hurts them more than it helps.

One thing the article doesn't cover enough is the underpinnings of theology at play.  Cornelius Van Til's rejection of neutrality anywhere, including politics, is a major factor.  It inherently rejects the secular liberal political order, where we think the same "natural law" rules can apply to everyone.  Can they?  No, CN says, we need God's revealed, special-revelation-law to apply to everyone.

World makes it seem like the choice is either secular liberal democracy a la Rawls, or theocracy.  This is a major flaw of the article.  Wolfe's book didn't do very well describing a path between the two.  Maybe Wilson's Mere Christendom does better.

It seems to me we want Christian worldview underpinnings to our law and politics, without the government fining or jailing people for worshiping in a way the state deems idolatrous (an absurdity at this point), taking God's name in vain or having their restaurant open on Sunday.

Most of CN is just Quixotic dreaming: "what would it look like if society actually implemented God's Word?"  They're not going to.  The last sentence of World's article sums it up: "It’s a sucker’s game. … You risk getting distracted from the things that actually matter."

Trump and Christianity

One of our family members gets regular anonymous hate mail from a leftist.

This arrived yesterday, with a Ruth Bader Ginsburg stamp on it:

"Trump has said that he has NEVER asked God for forgiveness.  Please explain to everyone how that is Christian."

1. I believe I remember Trump saying that.  I don't dispute the veracity of it.

2. It is not Christian.  Trump is a misguided or sub-Christian, at best, in his personal spirituality, in my estimation.

3. The writer assumes the Right's nominee needs to be Christian to be a valid candidate, and that conservative Christian voters will only vote for a Christian.  It's true pointing this out may make some Christian voters less motivated to vote for Trump.  But I think that would be a mistake.  Christians can vote for a politician who they don't think is a true Christian.

4. Thanks to the media, the Left now thinks most of the right are Christian Nationalists, who insist Christian doctrine be made law.  They project their own intolerance onto the Right.  The Left today is far less tolerant than the Right.  We just want to restrict people's freedom to kill others, whether that's a mother her baby, an illegal who just arrived, or a gang member in the inner city.  A DA is not free to not prosecute crimes, because he thinks the system is racist.  A president is not free to not enforce border laws, because he wants more votes for his party in the future.  A mother is not free to kill her baby, because she can't envision a good future if she doesn't.

5. Even with Trump's recent abortion statement, pre-born people in utero will be safer in a Trump presidency than they have been with Biden.  Trump will do more to preserve pre-born life than Biden will.  Even if he won't do enough, that's not a good enough reason to stay home and not vote against Biden.

6. On other issues more in the headlines, Trump is obviously better:
a. Better border policy
b. Not pressuring Israel to back off from Hamas.

7. It's pretty clear to me that both Biden and Trump are willing to use religion for their political purposes.  Neither seems very sincere on that front.  Trump is reading the political weather well on the abortion issue.  All the energy is on the pro-choice side, right now, and he's trying to blunt that.  I think he's being smart, politically, but it's disappointing.  We can expect more from our church leaders, but maybe not from our politicians in such a divided landscape.

8. Turnout decides elections in this climate.  Those who are angrier turn out more.  So our thought leaders are tempted to stoke anger in us, on both sides.  Instead decide to vote on principle, not emotion.

The Hammer of God - a Book Review

The Hammer of God by Bo Giertz
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

2 Corinthians 2:16 – “Who is sufficient for these things?”

Have you ever wondered what a pastor thinks and feels, what his relationship with God is like, as he ministers at church or visits you in the hospital?

This unique novel offers three stories of three young ministers, each faced with a spiritual crisis. Each is spiritually zealous and equally misguided. The main message is that pietism has no answers for the basic questions of the real spiritual life. What do you say when an otherwise Christian man raves on his deathbed, speaking profanely of his many sinful experiences? How do you help a woman who prays and seeks for a pure heart, but knows all the time she doesn’t have it?

Without a foundation of God’s grace to us in Christ, the Christian life is a shaky and brittle endeavor. The genius of The Hammer of God is to show us the truth of this in the minister’s own spiritual life, and his public ministry as well. Pursuing revivals and calling people to obedience and purity can be done in a way that focuses everyone on themselves or on the pastor. Such will pass as a wind-driven leaf. But to ground all we think, feel, and do in reliance on God’s grace, not finding our righteousness in our thoughts, emotions, or deeds, looking to Jesus only, brings sturdy, Gospel hope.

I was a pastor for many years, and this book ably gets inside the pastor’s mind and heart, in many ways.

The author is Lutheran, and baptismal regeneration is assumed at various points. But this is not overdone, and the main theme of the book is one every Christian needs to hear.

A strange omission: none of the clergy were married. Marriage as a minister wasn’t even a passing thought. Probably because the perpetual theme was the pietism-fighting pastor.

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” – Colossians 2:20-23.

Highly recommended, especially for pastors.

View all my reviews

Last Minute Palm Sunday Thought - Habakkuk 2

Most people and preachers catch the contextual point the Gospels make at Palm Sunday, when Jesus rides a donkey, from Zechariah 9.  It's right there on the surface: Jesus is the King of verse 9.

It's common to say those shouting "Hosanna" were expecting a military Messiah to drive out Rome, and I believe it.  It's an important warning to those who trust in earthly rulers to save, in every time.

But it's very UNcommon to hear an explanation of why they shouldn't expect Jesus to drive out Rome, given Zechariah 9:11-17.  Note all the military victory references, there!  (I think the answer lies in the multiple time-horizons of prophecy - the text doesn't always refer to the same event in the same epoch, even in the same chapter or verse, something the post- and pre-mil positions can't often grasp, and don't deal well with.)

Less obvious than Zechariah 9, but just as important, is Jesus' response to the Pharisees, when they demand He silence His shouting followers: "If these were silent, the very stones would cry out."  Often we think Jesus means all creation will praise Him, even if the Pharisees won't.  This is true, but not the point of the text.

Jesus here alludes to Habakkuk 2:11, "the stone will cry out from the wall," and its context.  "Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house.... Woe to him who builds a town with blood and founds a city on iniquity!"  This is exactly what the temple leaders Jesus confronted were doing.  It's fascinating the context of the chapter includes the famous verse, the just shall live by faith," contrasted with the wicked's greed, indulgence, and oppression.  Instead of indulging themselves by politically allying with the pagan Roman oppressors (the Sadducees), the faithful were called to wait on the Lord and live by faith (Hab. 2:4), not taking up arms.

So Palm Sunday is

 - acclaiming the coming King

 - accepting the right Lamb for your Passover atonement (another post)

Yes.  

But it is also prophetic confrontation of governmental/national sin as a nation.

Jesus unleashes a veritable flood of Scripture, rich in context, at this event (not only King, but Prophet and Priest).

 - My house shall be called a house of prayer - read all of Isaiah 56.

 - A den of robbers! - read all of Jeremiah 7.

 - Hosanna! (Save, please!) - read Psalm 118:19-27.

This Prophetic breakout continues during holy week in Jesus' teachings...

The Moscow Mood - basic differences, and Moscow's take

So Douglas Wilson and Kevin DeYoung are two of my most influential contemporary theological writers.

A few months ago, Kevin critiqued Doug.
Here is Doug Wilson’s response to Kevin.

Some basic disagreements between them seem to be:

What is the right level of political engagement?  
Should we stay a bit distant, focused on more directly spiritual matters (Kevin)?  
Or go full-boar into the fray, since politics IS a spiritual matter (Doug)?

To what extent should we instigate conflict in culture and politics?  
Not much, since it draws attention to the wrong thing (Kevin)?  
As much as possible, since people’s focus needs to be here in this moment (Doug)?

Doug would say, we need to try to set the world right, and not retreat to only our churches and homes.
Kevin would say, to focus less on politics and provocative rhetoric, and more on our churches and homes is not retreat, but a proper biblical focus.

What is the “Moscow Mood”?
Moscow would define it thusly:
You can’t fight a culture without a culture.  The mainstream Reformed Evangelical movement (of which Kevin is coming to be a major leader) does not HAVE a meaningful culture of its own.  Moscow does, and it’s getting attention.  Build Christendom and fight the ungodly culture out there.  We want Christ as Lord over everything.  Not just Sunday morning.  Not just church and family time.

Many think fighting a la Moscow-style means scowling or indulging anger.  It doesn’t.
Fighting well means living a corporate, embodied Christianity with a purpose.

Lots of young people hear what they are supposed to be doing, but know they are not doing it, b/c they aren’t plugged into a community.  Faith is in the upper story only, to use Francis Schaeffer’s categories.  How do we live it out down here, in the lower story?  Or do we only escape to the upper story to live out our godliness and piety?  Christians don’t know how to build a robust Christian life here on earth.  God is bringing the Kingdom of God to earth, not only by the direct work of His Son apart from us, but also through our work here, building families, churches, communities and nations.

The mainstream Reformed Evangelical movement has forsaken this for either a carnal political solution (joining the Trump train, or going Sojourner/liberal mainline).  Or, rejecting that, an escapist pietism that ignores politics as much as possible.

Next time I’ll respond to Kevin’s critiques of this “mood.”
A hint: some of it is off base.  Some of it hits the mark.

The Moscow Mood - Introduction and Piety

It seems that since Kevin DeYoung critiqued the Moscow Mood a few months ago, Moscow likes to talk about their mood.

I’ve been around the Moscow Mood for over 15 years, and recently have attended other Reformed churches, which have very different “moods” from Moscow.  I think I have something to add, here.

Let me start with a question that exposes the important and differing assumptions everyone makes in debates like this:

What is piety supposed to look like?

A. In some Reformed churches, it is assumed that godliness – especially in worship – should be slow, somber, reverent, cerebral, formal and deliberate.  This is the Ligonier Ministries mentality - the bowed head, furrowed brow, and concerned tone.  Generally, this view assumes piety will look and feel OPPOSITE of the world.

B. In others, piety should look more easy-going, winsome, warm-hearted on your sleeve, emotionally expressive and sensitive.  This is the Tim Keller approach - the upbeat, always smiling, love-everyone-warmly tone.  This view more adopts the inter-relational customs and fads of how the world acts.

C. In stark contrast, the Moscow Mood thinks of piety primarily as a fight.  A recent CREC’s Council’s slogan was “Fight the Good Fight.”  Fight, Laugh, Feast!  “Nice” borders on being a swear word.  There is a battle going on for your country, family, church, and soul.  To not fight is compromise.  Of course, this is coming mainly from Doug Wilson: a combative, provocative tone meant to stir you to action in the battle, and usually to feel hostile to the world so you'll fight more effectively.

None of these are totally off base, but there are pros and cons to each.

A. Reverence is essential to piety.  Much of the evangelical world has lost it and churches aren’t encouraging it much.  Group A is right to react against that.  Believe it or not, some churches have almost total silence in the meeting room before the service, as an expression of this.  You can argue if that specific practice is ideal, but we must recover reverence.  

B. Love for neighbor should be integral to piety.  We are not hostile to anyone, but see the image of God in everyone we meet.

C. Fighting the spiritual war is also essential to piety.  We are hostile to a spirit of anti-Christian malevolence, wherever it appears.

I wish there were churches that blended all three of these together better, but alas, that seems beyond the reach of the current church.  We need reverent, warm-hearted, happy warriors.

There is much more to say about the "Moscow mood.”  In future posts I’ll interact with DeYoung and Wilson's response, consider "the mood" theologically (VanTil’s “no neutrality,” v. common grace), politically, and culturally (what is Christian culture?).

Until then, the question I leave you with is this: what is your standard for godliness?  We all have shorthand markers: things we think, feel, or do, that reassure us we are being godly.  What are yours?  Are those correct, in the light of Scripture?

Living in Union with Christ - a Review

Living in Union with Christ: Paul's Gospel and Christian Moral Identity by Grant Macaskill
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

In this excellent little book, the author makes three points very well:

1. Union with Christ.
a. Without arguing for any new doctrine, Macaskill pushes this idea into all our living, using Galatians 2:20 as his touchstone: “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” This means that the good that we do we do as those inhabited by Christ and His Spirit. Even secular self-improvement books often point out that how you identify and see yourself has a huge impact on your behavior. When we keep our “Christ-in-me” identity at the forefront of our thoughts, it radically changes the landscape of the fight against ongoing sin, and our view of our good deeds.

b. Also, Macaskill articulates this union in fresh and provocative ways, like this: “an alien reality [is] being inserted into us with transformational effects” (pg 85). This evokes the sci-fi world, where this is always ominous. Yet this union is not “possession,” where our agency is over-ridden. Christ by His Spirit and Word dwelling in us richly trains, persuades, matures, and aids our will to follow His.

c. Two quotes from the very end of the book sum it up well. We must avoid “seeing the Spirit as an independent energy working to make us into better versions of ourselves… [Rather] we see Him as the one working to realize the identity of the Son within us” (142). The final defining reality of our lives and our church is the potent goodness of Jesus Christ” (145).

2. Legalism. Macaskill gives a helpful definition. Legalism is trying to hold and accrue social or spiritual capital with God or others by anything you have done. Legalism isn’t always brazenly thinking you can earn salvation by your deeds, or Pharisaically majoring on minors. The problem is thinking any good we do is “ours” at all. True union with Christ means anything we do that pleases God, Christ has done in us. We can’t use any of it as leverage with God. Union with Christ refutes every shade of legalism completely.

3. New Perspective. This is a good one for the theology wonks. Macaskill interacts a fair bit with NT Wright and Sanders, the main New Perspective (NP) proponents, and I liked his conclusions:

a. NP is right to see that broader themes define the gospel than only forgiveness of sin via imputation of Christ’s righteousness. (The kingdom and victory of God and union with Christ are two of their favorites.)

b. NP is wrong to redefine or reject imputation in favor of those other themes.

c. Union with Christ helps us see the broader themes without losing the classic, orthodox definition of imputation. The latter does not happen without union with Christ, so it need not (SHOULD not) be seen as a cold or impersonal forensic transaction where the contact is momentary – like getting cash out of an ATM to cover your debts.


Although under 150 pages, the writing is quite academic, and light on “street-level,” practical application. There is also one paragraph at the very end where he assumes the LGBT issue is one that should not divide the church, with which I disagreed. But his bigger point is sound, that agreement on everything should not be the basis of Christian unity.

Macaskill exegetes several passages like 1 Cor. 5-6, 10-11, Isa 53, Rom 6-7 very well in light of our union with Christ. Any Christian used to more academic writing would profit from reading this book.

View all my reviews

The Loveliness of Christ - a Review

 

The Loveliness of Christ: Selections from the Letters of Samuel Rutherford by Samuel Rutherford
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

A rare five stars.

This is a tiny book, with just short quotes of Rutherford's letters, which can be found more completely at Banner of Truth.

I read them devotionally, 2 pages a day.

The older English is a bit hard to follow at times, but footnotes explain when needed.

Most of these quotes relate to affliction and trouble - I haven't studied Rutherford's history, but am quite sure he had a keen pastoral sense to respond to write to those suffering troubles with the "balm of Gilead."

You won't see this much on social media, but many of Christ's people are hurting, and in need of not just encouragement but also an understanding from God's view of what is happening to them. This little booklet delivers in spades.

Highly recommended.

View all my reviews

On the Civil Magistrate – from Westminster Confession, chapter 23

Note the formatting is uneven in the WCF quotes.  This is not intended to emphasize anything...

1. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good, and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.

 

My read:

There is a realm of civil government that is somehow distinct from churchly or familial authority.  It has a legitimate power of force over church and family in certain situations.

 

 

 

2. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasion.

 

My read:

Christians can be part of this civil government, biblically, even to waging war when it is just.

 

 

 

3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.  For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

 

My read: But civil government cannot usurp the realm of the church.  It can and should promote Christianity in various ways, but not tell church rulers what to do in their sphere of authority.

 

 

American Revision of 1788:

3. (Completely rewritten) Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

 

My read: Note the civil government is still called upon to be a nursing father to the church of Christ, just not establishing any certain denomination as the national church.  It adds the duty to protect the civil rights of all people, regardless of religion – a definite innovation and improvement of civil government in the modern world, I believe.

 

 

4. a. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. 

b. Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.

 

My read:

a. Christians must honor the persons in civil office.  (Not just the documents chartering a nation, to the exclusion of the office-holders, as has been recently asserted.)

b. Just because a culture/people becomes atheistic, secular, or equally divided among differing religions doesn’t mean they don’t have a duty to submit to the civil government’s orders.  Church leaders must obey civil rulers, too.  [TO WHAT EXTENT?]  The pope surely doesn’t have authority over foreign civil rulers.

 

 

Conclusion

There must be some middle ground between these two positions:

1.      We must submit to the existing authorities in all things, because God put them there.  Whatever they say, we do, because they are God’s servants and delegates.

2.      We only submit to the civil government when we agree that their policies are in accord with God’s Word.  If we don’t think they are, we disregard them.

Neither of these is right. 

Is there a proper time for the civil government to order the closure of religious services in its area?  YES.  A tornado or hurricane is imminent, e.g.  But when it asserts this authority unreasonably (Covid is still an emergency, 24-36 months on, e.g.), the church can disregard and defy it.

 

Regarding covid-like situations, church leaders are free to set their own health parameters regarding meeting and Communion, following or disregarding guidance or orders from the civil government.  Their default should be to learn from and obey the state, but exceptions must be made if the state is asking people to sin, and MAY be made if the state is calling for unwise things, out of alignment with scriptural patterns of behavior.  Church members should do all they can to submit to church leaders’ policies in such a situation.

Forging the Peninsulas: Michigan is Made

Forging the Peninsulas: Michigan Is Made by David B. McConnell
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Local history is a much overlooked subject in education. Everything today has been nationalized – we know way more about what happened today in D.C. or Ukraine than we do across town. This is partly because during the Cold War, our public education shifted to focus on instilling into our pupils a positive national identity. And it drowned out any identity but the American. Local media have been bought up and dominated by national conglomerates. People are quick to move out of state for employment. All this feeds our utter ignorance of the history of our place. We don’t even have a sense of our place, anymore.

Back in the 1st century, when God providentially brought many Gentiles into the New Testament church, they became part of a history they hadn’t known before. Jews came alongside them, and read to them from the Old Testament, saying, “As you are in Christ, this is your story, now.”

So, if you move to a new place, or as you grow up in the same one, parents or mentors should give you resources like “Forging the Peninsulas,” and say, “Since you’re settling here, this is part of your story, now.” 

This is a GREAT textbook, probably for middle schoolers. But I read it and learned a ton, though I’ve lived in Michigan for 30 of my 47 years. It covers the facts and historical trends evenly, both chronologically and ideologically. (As this is a Hillsdale publication I expected nothing less – always excellent work there.)

I’d urge you to find similar works wherever you live. Have your children read them. Read them yourselves. Visit local historical sites and enrich your education by actually being there. There is SO much to learn from our past. Too many assume that since we have had phones for the last 15 years that can Google anything, our forefathers have nothing more to teach us.  What folly!

Most of the wisdom you REALLY need to know in life, you can’t get from Google. It’s gotta come from somewhere and someone closer.

View all my reviews

Wounded by God's People - a review

Wounded by God's People: Discovering How God's Love Heals Our Hearts by Anne Graham Lotz
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This was a very important book for me personally, though it isn’t all that deep or insightful theologically.

The daughter of Billy Graham can write and speak well, drawing on Hagar’s life to show us how to handle hard times, and use them to draw us nearer to the Lord.

She strikes an important balance in this regard: how to name the wounds we have suffered, without falling prey to a victim mentality about them. It’s important to recognize and identify your wounds, to admit you have been wounded, to see how it is affecting your faith and outlook on life. If we don’t see it or deny it is there, that can be just as harmful. But if we only see the wound and look back on our wounder with resentment, or look inward with self-pity, instead of treating it and moving forward with faith in God, we are no better off.

I don’t think Lotz is a Calvinist, but she strikes a strong note of God’s sovereignty in this way: we wouldn’t know God as well as we do, if we didn’t walk through trials and come through them still looking to Him in faith. But as a Graham will do, she also emphasizes our choice and responsibility to respond well or poorly to being wounded.

Anyone struggling in their faith because of hard times, conflict, or negative church experiences, should read this.

View all my reviews

Son of Laughter - a review

The Son of Laughter by Frederick Buechner
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

This was my first book by Frederick Buechner, and boy was I thrown. He retells the story of Jacob, the son of Isaac (which means Laughter). But the retelling is deliberately jarring to refined, modern ears. He tries to put us in the ancient world with lots of crude descriptions of various practices surrounding sex and religion, which were often commingled then. This can be quite off putting to most readers.

But if you stick with it there are some nuggets of bronze to be gleaned. Hearing and heeding the voice of God, against all odds. (Perhaps some Karl Barth-like themes, here.) Being faced with hard, pressing life events, and still believing what the Fear (the God of Isaac) tells you instead.

Can’t really recommend to the average reader, but if you’re doing a study of Isaac, Jacob or Joseph, it may be useful for a different take on their life.

View all my reviews

Carry a Big Stick - a review

Carry a Big Stick: The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt by George Grant
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I love George Grant. This book inspires me to be like Teddy. His boundless optimism and energy spur me on to productivity and higher purpose.

But I also noticed this time through a Grant biography that it is basic hagiography – making someone a saint. Since the purpose is to inspire and hold up as estimable, any failing or flaws are drastically minimized or ignored. Grant does better when treating issues (Blood of the Moon; Bringing in the Sheaves).

Each chapter is 3-4 small pages long – probably a blog post or magazine article somewhere else before compiled into this book.

If you need something short, quick, and inspiring, this is the book for you.
To actually learn about TR, you probably need to look elsewhere.

View all my reviews

Leaving Home - a review

 

Leaving Home by Garrison Keillor
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Leaving Home, a Review
Life among the Lutherans, a review

I love Garrison Keillor. He has a real knack for telling a good story, and subtly weaving in ideas. He can make you think about something deep, just by listening to what you thought was plain tale about down-home people or everyday events. Basically he can be a little preachy without it usually coming off as such.

This can be good or bad, depending on the message. For Keillor it’s a bit of both. Sometimes he’s showing the importance of a small town, and how good it is to be known by those who live around you – something we’ve mostly lost today. But other times, he treats marital affairs and the breakup of families casually, making them feel okay. As long as you can detect and reject the latter, it’s good, lighthearted fun, along the lines of Wodehouse.

This also applies to the church and pastors in the town. They’re shown as a natural and good part of life. As he writes sermons and counsels people, the pastor has his own thoughts and motivations, sometimes aligned with the faith, and other times not. It was easy to recognize myself there. The rivalry between the Catholic and Lutheran church is hilariously caricatured.

But Keillor either doesn’t understand or deliberately misrepresents the faith at many points. Being gracious, he’s trying to explain how and why people of faith fail to live out their beliefs well. But now and then, I noted a darker tone of bitterness against the church. Guilt trips of “perpetual responsibility.” The hypocrisy of insisting on presenting one thing publicly when you live a different way privately.

And salvation was mostly found in the sentiment of fondness for the people in your town, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Keillor’s is the faith of Fosdick, Peale, and Schuller, not of Luther.

Still, the social critiques are sometimes justified, and can help church people be self-reflective about their own flaws, without a harsh word given.

So, you’ll find entertaining stories here, which I recommend to the discerning reader. But stay alert to the messages lying beneath.

View all my reviews