Lessons in Marriage from Ballroom Dancing

So my wife and I have been taking ballroom dancing classes on and off the last few months.

Wow.

First, I didn’t realize how out of shape I was, but we’ll set that aside…

Ballroom dancing is kinetic marriage counseling.

The man has to know the steps of the dance and be willing to lead his wife – literally have her move how she wants him to.  To do this well, he has to signal clearly, ahead of time, so she knows what to do.  If he doesn’t, the dance falls apart.

Both he and she may know the options – what steps are possible to do – but if he doesn’t lead, she’s lost.  They are both lost.

This doesn’t mean she is helpless without him, just that she has a role, and so does he.  The dance instructors literally call this being a “lead” and a “follow.”  A movie I like, “Shall We Dance?” with Richard Gere and Angelina Jolie, puts this well.  Speaking to the man, the instructor says, “You are the frame.  She is the picture.”  His job in leading her is not to dominate and keep her under, but to glorify her.  “Show me, and everyone, your stuff.  You can do so much.  Show us what you can do.”

If you mess up the steps of the dance, of life, you can literally and physically hurt her, stepping on her toes, etc.  Men, you’ve gotta know what to do, and take the action to do it.  Else you fall on the floor together.  Or there’s no dance at all.

From the woman’s perspective:

Women are often the ones who drag their guys to ballroom dancing classes, thinking it’ll be good for him and them.  And it will.  But she doesn’t know what she’s getting into.

Suddenly she has to let him lead.  If she tries to take over, the dance falls apart.  When she lets him lead, it’s beautiful, and she is beautified.  It’s a huge struggle for her in life and on the dance floor, to wait for him to figure it out, and do the correct steps together.

Back to the man.  

I’ve said “let him lead” a lot.  But the steps aren’t wholly determined by the guy, either.  There’s a specific way you’re supposed to lead.  (It’s defined in the Bible quite clearly.)  The man doesn’t create the dance – he’s following a clearly defined tradition.  Each dance – waltz, swing, cha cha, samba, etc. – has its specifically defined steps.  If he’s doing it wrong, she’s not out of bounds to stop the dance and say, “That’s not how we do this.  Get it right.”  She should do this in their relationship, too, if he’s out of bounds.

The minute and subtle details of dance are very telling.  The man has to know two or three steps ahead of time (1-2 seconds), what he wants the next step to be.  And he has to signal clearly to her one or two steps ahead of time what to do.  Then she can be ready and joyfully follow.  Is there a major budget, housing, or job change needed in the family?  Make it clear, and get her on board.  If you just go off and do something and she’s in the dark, or if it’s the wrong step, the dance will fall apart.

Sometimes the man gives a clear signal, but she makes a wrong step – she wanted or expected to do something else.  He says, “That was a good signal I gave you,” and it’s on her for not following.  But sometimes the man isn’t sure what to do next, so they’re in a holding pattern, or she’s confused and she says, “You’ve gotta tell me where we’re going.”  And that’s on him.

Besides all this, the best thing about dance is that you get to hold each other, and look at one another face to face for an extended period of time.  You adore each other.  (Sometimes you’re frustrated with each other.)  There’s a sexual/erotic aspect to it sometimes, but not always.  You talk about the mistakes you just made.  Figure out what went wrong, and how to fix it.  Then you come back together and try again.

Give ballroom dance a try together.

Project Hail Mary - a book review

 

Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I saw this Science Fiction movie on opening night in the theater (never saw a movie on opening day before).
I read the book after watching the movie (seldom do that, either).

Weir also wrote The Martian, which is a favorite movie of mine.

His forte/theme is fortitude in difficult situations, scientific problem solving, realizing your mistakes, and receiving help from unlikely sources.

When scientists discover the sun is being eaten and cooled by alien microbes, leading to climate catastrophe in 30 years, the nations of the world launch a coordinated mission to a nearby star that isn’t dying, to figure out why and send a solution back to Earth. The main character, Ryland Grace, is an academically ostracized scientist, now junior high science teacher, who is drafted against his will to work on the mission and be one of the three crew members.

The two coolest things about the story:
1. Grace wakes up at the beginning with coma-induced amnesia after years of interstellar space travel. His two crewmates are dead. He is alone, and has to figure out what he’s supposed to do and who he is. He gradually recovers his memory (including his name, about 100 pages in!), and figures it out.

2. Grace encounters and befriends an alien seeking the same solution Grace is. Their relationship becomes the heart of the story.

Besides being heavily evolution- and old-earth-based, and a handful of swear words, there’s little objectionable in the story, and worth seeing/reading with 12 year olds and up. (Weir actually subs out mild words for swear words more often than he uses vulgarity.)

Going to great lengths to help a new, strange friend becomes the main theme. Earth needs the Eridian alien, and Erid needs the human Grace. If they don’t work together, two planets die.

Great story!

View all my reviews

Apply God's Word - Job 4

We had a fun moment at family devotions tonight.

 

We were up to Job 4, and I kind of groaned, and said, Maybe we’ll just skip to the highlights of Job.  My family pushed back a bit – rightly – and we read it.

 

WOW.

 

Job’s friends get a lot of flak, and rightly so, in some ways.  Right after saying he’s so sad he wishes he’d never been born (chapter 3), they launch into “Who do you think you are?”

 

It’s cruel, but couched in theologically correct language.  (Take a moment to read Job 4.)  We agreed that this is probably Satanic.  Who is this spirit that glides past his face, giving him goosebumps (verses 15-16)?  Is it the Holy Spirit or the accuser?  Both God and the devil can say the same thing, have much the same sensational effect, and yet mean it for opposite ends.  Can a man be right before God (vs 17)?  No.  Does that mean our fate is to be “crushed like a moth” (vs 19)?

 

That’s the devil’s plan.  Use total depravity to crush us.  Use anything, even the most glorious truths, the most beautiful and glorious gifts He's given us in the world, to turn us against our God.

 

He wants us “beaten to pieces” (vs 20), and he’ll use half of “justification by faith alone” to do it.

“You can’t be right with God by what you’ve done.  It’s no use.  So give it up.  Lay down.  Curse God, and die.”

The first two sentences are correct.  The rest is wicked application of the truth, turning us away from God.

 

Here’s a key point:

 

SO much of theology is in the application.  Note how Eliphaz says true things – that Job can’t be pure before God on his own.  But then uses that to crush him.

 

Parents and pastors are called to use God’s truth to edify, encourage, sanctify, and yes, sometimes rebuke.  There’s a whole school of preaching out there that says, don’t apply the text, you’ll probably screw it up.  And they’re half right.  People DO screw up the application, much of the time.

 

But to say, I’m not going to go there, because “I might get it wrong” is burying your talents in the ground, and God doesn’t like that.

 

Parents that only give theology and worldview to their kids, without speaking into their lives.

Pastors that rail against the latest thing on social media or in the national news, without addressing the needs of their own people.

These are the most serious problems.

 

Yes, you might get it wrong.  But trust the Spirit within you, the love you have for your children, your people, and talk to them, ABOUT them.  “Admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all (1 Thessalonians 5:14).

 

Apply God’s truths to God’s people.

Propaganda Girls - a Review

Propaganda Girls: The Secret War of the Women in the OSS by Lisa Rogak
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book tells the tale of four restless women who wanted to help the war effort in World War II. Each brought unique gifts to the table: a Hollywood star and singer, intimate knowledge of Japanese culture and language, a gift for putting German soldiers at ease during questioning, etc.

The basic point is that they engaged in “black propaganda.” Leaflets, radio spots, etc, designed to demoralize the enemy. They would rewrite popular songs with lyrics that hinted that the war wasn’t worth it. Write short blurbs that drove a wedge between Japanese officers and soldiers. Announce to the Germans that Hitler was overthrown and they might as well surrender. Suggest that soldiers’ wives/girls were lonely back home and finding someone else to love them.

These tactics moved thousands of the enemy to surrender, waving the propaganda that these women wrote as they approached Allied forces in surrender. These women worked for the OSS, the precursor to the CIA.

The book has a lot of feminist insertions, constantly reminding the reader that the women worked way harder than the men, and got paid a fraction of what the men did. They were seldom promoted, being expected to go back home when the war was over. I’m sure there is some truth to the injustice of this, but it’s harped on repeatedly.

The immorality of the women and the Allies in general is only hinted at. But when you read between the lines it is quite atrocious. Most of them were divorced multiple times, one was a cabaret singer – the first to kiss another woman on the silver screen. This is all spun as “war is hard on marriage and love,” but they made poor choices along the way.

Still, a worth-while historical read. 3 stars.

View all my reviews

Judgment of the Nephilim - a Review

Judgment Of The Nephilim by Ryan Pitterson
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

This book was recommended by Doug Wilson a year or 2 ago, but it's pretty terrible.

While I'm open to the assertion that the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6:4 were angels, Pitterson's argument relies largely on apocryphal works and overly literalistic readings of prophecy that are a stretch, and sometimes laughable.

The "book" God wrote for us in Psalm 139:14 is DNA.

The vision of Zechariah 5:9 of two women proves there are female angels.

Sorry, but no.

Pitterson does make some good exegetical points for his position in the first 100 pages, but it's so riddled with special pleading and stretches, that I only got 1/3 of the way through, and put it down.

View all my reviews

Good Poems - a review

Good Poems, American Places by Garrison Keillor
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

This book would better be titled "Mediocre Poems."
I got halfway through it, but gave up.
One in every 50 is pretty good, but else it's not worth the time.

View all my reviews

Undaunted Courage - a book review - Lewis and Clark

 

Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West by Stephen E. Ambrose
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A quintessentially American enterprise I knew nothing about, and learned a great deal.

Lewis was an elite Virginia landowner in Jefferson’s social circle. When Jefferson came to the presidency he made Lewis his personal secretary. He was a very close confidant for years. The Louisiana purchase from Napoleon was in the works for years, but not a certainty. For 2 years, Jefferson trained Lewis in celestial navigation, botany, etc., and prepared an expedition to explore the continent to the Pacific, especially seeking a river / water route up the Missouri River over the Rockies to the Pacific. The goal was mainly to take the fur trade away from the British/Canadian Northwest company.

They planned the trip for 2 years, knowing the territory was not American. Parts of it were British, parts Spanish. But they simply assumed it would be American soon, and were going to explore it as if it were theirs, anyway. Jefferson tutored Lewis privately in the natural arts for months, while he was president. The day before Lewis left, they got word from Napoleon confirming he would sell “the Louisiana territory” to America.

Clark was an army buddy of Lewis, very trusted and respected. Although officially not a peer in rank with Lewis, Lewis treated him as such, giving him equal say in all decisions on the expedition. Typical lore is that it was Lewis, Clark, and Sacagawea on the trip, but they actually spent a lot of time recruiting a team of men – between 30-50 – and built a large riverboat and several canoes for the journey. Lewis was a fabulous leader of men, building immense loyalty among his team. At a few points they all thought they should take route A, but Lewis and Clark believed in route B, and the men followed. While they paddled canoes, Lewis wrote his journal, taking notes on many new plants and animals unknown to Western science until then.

Lewis and Clark were both slave owners, and Clark had a black slave York with him the whole time. They treated each Indian tribe they met in a rather patronizing manner – they had a new great Father now in Washington. They were his children, now, and should send their chiefs to meet him. They seldom gave out rifles though the Indians grabbed for all the gifts they would give. The Indians often hounded and stole from the expedition along the way.

The abundance of buffalo around present day Kansas made the land seem a Garden of Eden to them. They feasted on buffalo for weeks. Later in the Rockies, they had to eat horses and dogs, nearly starving.

Crossing the Rocky Mountains was especially tricky. They had to trade with Indians for horses, hire them as guides, and leave their canoes and supplies behind. They made it through an arduous journey to the Colombia river, where they built canoes again, and floated down the river to the Pacific. Some Indians were friendly, others were hostile.

Lewis advised Jefferson on trade policy from the Pacific Ocean. The expedition wasn’t just exploratory, but designed to decide how America could best take trade from the Canadian/British and French. Given the difficult Rocky crossing, the hostile Sioux tribe along the Missouri, and the abundance of furs west of the Rockies, Lewis advised trading with China. He was the scout and forerunner of American westward expansion.

On the way back, a friendly tribe told him not to attempt to cross the Rockies until late June, but Lewis didn’t want to wait. He made the attempt but had to turn back – the Indians were right. 12 feet of snow kept them from finding the trail they needed. They hired 5 teenaged Indians as guides who knew exactly where there would be grass for their horses, each step of the way, every day. Sacagawea as translator and guide – taken as a slave-wife to a French trader from a Western tribe – and such Indians get little credit in Lewis’ journals, but they would not have survived without them.

They fended off grizzly bears, wolves, and snakes, with nothing more than rifles with one shot per minute or two. One shot to a grizzly seldom took it down, and they had to run for their lives as the bear chased them.

The end of the story is the most fascinating. Getting back to civilization at St. Louis, they were heroes, treated to balls and dances as they made their way back to Washington. Everyone was eager for Lewis’ journal to be published, but he delayed and never got it done. (It wasn’t published until decades later.) Many of his actual samples of plants and animals he sent back to Jefferson were lost, but not all. He was made an honorary member of the Philadelphia naturalist society.

Jefferson as president appointed Lewis governor of the Louisiana territory, but he was a poor politician. Lewis got greedy, insisting only he publish journals of the expedition, but stalling in getting his published. He fell to heavy drinking and drug use. While Clark courted and married back in Virginia, Lewis caroused in Philadelphia, when he should have been governing in St. Louis. When he finally got to St. Louis, he was heavy handed with the hostile Indians, and insisted on government funds for a lot of things, which he had always gotten from Jefferson. When James Madison was elected president he started his way to Washington to report to him. Madison was far less willing to approve funds for Lewis’ projects.

Halfway to Washington in 1809, at the age of 35, Lewis committed suicide in a drug induced frenzy. He left many debts, personal and public, with his unpublished journal of the expedition in a corner of his room. Jefferson coined the phrase to describe Lewis at the end: “courage undaunted.” But Lewis’ expeditionary exploits and exertions definitely daunted him in the end.

View all my reviews

On Fascism, the New Right, and the Decline of the Liberal Order

There seems to be a seismic shift happening politically.  Away from the classical liberal, internationalist order of the last 80 years or so, to either a soft communism on the left, or soft fascism on the right.

Let me explain!

After World War II, the world was firmly set against the evils of nationalism, seeing what it did when left unchecked in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  The geopolitical consensus was: let’s work together as nations, and not pursue our own national ambitions aggressively and/or belligerently, or we’ll have to go through all that again.  (The formation of the United Nations was a part of this intent, though its structural and functional flaws run deep, to the point of being of little use.)  Still, the functional relationship especially among Western nations became substantially more cordial.  “We want to basically be friends, and not provoke or get mad at each other, so we don’t wind up in another world war.”

 

This was the intangible foundation of the classical liberal internationalist order, and it was assumed as bedrock, until about 10 minutes ago.

 

But the younger political generation, from AOC to JD Vance and their followers, do NOT think this way.  They are much more willing to use political force to advance their communist or nationalist agenda, with less concern for how it provokes others.

 

I’d rather have a national political agenda that collaborates with friendly nations, instead of seeking to get all we can out of them, America first, style.  I oppose Trump in this, but don’t think he’s about to provoke WWIII anywhere, either.

 

The extreme polarization of society in the last 10-15 years has led to a greater willingness, especially among the young, to exert political force on the other side, rather than resort to persuasion.

 

Fascism needs further comment.  The right is exasperated that the left constantly accuses them of fascism just for not agreeing with them.  I share that frustration, but also see signs that the new right IS adopting some elements of fascism, just as the left is adopting communism.  This usually gets inflammatory in heated discussion, but let’s try being rational a moment.

 

The first definition of fascism is, “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator.”  Now, Trump is no dictator.  The overreach of executive power has been going on for decades, from GW Bush’s national security after 9/11, to Obama’s “I have a phone and a pen,” and on.  Trump is merely continuing what they and Biden have continued and expanded.  But I don’t like it – it’s very Imperial Rome.  The Republic is dying.  We need a limited government conservative in office, again.  We don’t have it, and I don’t see it in the foreseeable future.

 

The second definition of fascism is, “a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls.”

I’m seeing this more and more, in Trump’s insistence with private businesses that they do business a certain way in a certain place, for the national interest.  There is a case to be made for protecting the American economy, here, but it comes at the price of liberty.  I’m not sure where to draw the line, honestly.  But I do know we are moving more toward subjecting the private market to government control, whether from the left or from the right.  The recent 10% stake in Intel by the Federal government is a clear example.  Not good.

 

The third definition of fascism: “violent suppression of the opposition.”  This one has the least credibility as an accusation from the left against the right.  The only violent suppression happening is against criminals and illegals in our country, which should be done.  The extreme opposition to law and order on the left makes me most willing to accept the right-wing conspiracies that the left WANTS more crime and illegals, to destabilize the country and give them more power.

 

The last definition of fascism: “a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”  I’m seeing belligerent nationalism, definitely.  Take our allies for all the tariff taxes they’re worth.  Who cares about Ukrainians being assaulted when we’ve got our own borders and people to deal with?  Sometimes this comes with a tinge of racism: we want an ethnically cohesive culture (Stephen Wolfe).  The goal is to foster Western culture and American identity, which I appreciate.  But to force companies to hire Americans at twice the labor cost as Indians doesn’t seem right to me, either.  And as a country we don’t know who we are anymore, so instilling an American identity in immigrants, or sussing out if they own it on a case by case basis before letting them into the USA, isn’t feasible.  This gives some credence to the new right’s argument that we should just stop all immigration until we’ve got that sorted out.  But in the meantime, if it ever happens, there are real, persecuted asylum seekers who are getting booted back to their countries where they’ll be tortured and maybe killed when we send them home.  To do that to people in the name of nationalism, to abandon Ukraine to Russia’s invasion, is an ethical failure on our part.

 

I would prefer a return to a classically liberal order, where freedom for all is respected, but I fear it is gone.  Such freedom has been too much abused, and people are sick of the results.  As Chuck Colson liked to say, if we won’t rule ourselves, we will be ruled by others.  Now we’re just fighting over who will rule us with an iron fist, and that fight will get more and more desperate, as we realize it WILL be an iron fist, either way.  I don’t want Christian morality imposed in all its details on the entire populace, but neither do I want to see more abortion carnage and LGBT perversion celebrated.  People are just looking for basic sanity these days, but most political actors don’t seem very interested in that.

The Wizard of Oz - book review

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

With my wife trying out for a part in this play soon, I got interested, and read the book and watched the movie at the same time. The book was published in 1900 and the movie in 1939.

A positive take: the movie was a hit during the depression, encouraging people to face the reality of a hard life. You can escape to fantasyland, Oz, for a while, but there’s no place like home – black and white Kansas - and you should want to be there, even if it’s hard. The movie’s premiere of technicolor was a dramatic demonstration of this. Going from black and white Kansas to technicolor Oz was a striking cinematic first. But Dorothy longed for black-and-white Kansas in the end.

A more cynical, and I think realistic take: this is an insidious story. The plot is an inversion of Pilgrim’s Progress. Instead of Christian’s hopeful journey to the Celestial City, where all hopes are fulfilled, Dorothy finds her hopes in the Wizard at the Emerald City dashed. Her faith winds up in her companions, not in the God who inhabits the city she journeys toward. He is an illusion, a sheister, a conman. The scarecrow wanted brains from the Wizard, but always had them. The Tinman wanted a heart, but had one all along. The lion sought courage from the wizard, but had it himself all along. We don’t need God to give us these things – we can find it within ourselves.

In the movie, the same good witch who sends Dorothy on her journey knew from the beginning how she could get home. But without the journey she wouldn’t have helped her companions discover their own inner strengths. The trek to the Emerald City wasn’t for any value in the destination, but to discover what they could learn about how they themselves were strong. This is the exact opposite of the Christian message of Pilgrim’s Progress, where we learn our weakness, and God’s power to give us strength for the journey beyond ourselves. The modern cliché that the journey is the thing, not the destination, comes from this, and it is WRONG. The destination in God’s Celestial City is the main thing, though He certainly teaches us much along the journey.

In the book, the good witch at the end serves as a sort of just and merciful God, sending Dorothy home, and sending each of her companions to their lands to rule. There is a subtle hint of dominion: as the lion, scarecrow, and tinman will rule their lands, Dorothy is sent home to her beloved Kansas, to take dominion there by loving and being content in it.

But the message in the end is a strong rebuke of escapism. Don’t long for a fantasy land like Oz – hoping in a Wizard to give you what you want is pointless. You need to look within to meet your hopes, not somewhere over the rainbow. This became the gold standard of 20th century pop psychology, and is a perversion of the Christian message.

View all my reviews

Planet Narnia - a review

Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis by Michael Ward
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I’ve been immersed in Narnia for the past few months.

Finally got around to Michael Ward’s “Planet Narnia” which is a richly rewarding read. Halfway through the first chapter, I decided to reread each book he covered, chapter by chapter, and that turned out to be a GREAT idea.

Ward’s thesis is that each of the 7 Narnia books is under one of the 7 medieval planets, taking up all the mythology with it. Since Lewis was such a Medieval scholar, and reading Ward and Narnia again, I’m convinced he is right.

For instance, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is under Jupiter, the god Jove. Peter, the eldest, says “By Jove” a lot. Jupiter is the god of turning winter to spring, sorrow to joy, death to life. Aslan does this throughout the story in multiple ways.

Prince Caspian is under Mars, the god of war. There is lots of martial imagery. Mars is god of the trees, and weapons and both play a significant role in the book.

Ward’s book is less accessible to the normal reader at points, but it’s still worth it. He brings in Lewis’ other writings – the Space Trilogy, Miracles, etc. – to reinforce his points, but there’s a lot of Latin and French I didn’t understand. His argument is quite sound, though.

What I found most fascinating is that each of the books displays a different perspective of Aslan as the Lord Jesus Christ. He brings joy (LWW), He is a military victor (Prince Caspian), He is the creator (Magician’s Nephew), etc. Reading Narnia and Ward together gave me a richer picture of Jesus Himself and it’s glorious.

View all my reviews

Saving Leonardo - a Review

Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning by Nancy R. Pearcey
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I’ve long had a soft spot in my heart for the arts. My wife is a painter and art historian. I love literature and novels. So any book merging Christian worldview with the arts, in the way Francis Schaeffer did in “How Now Shall We Live?” gets high marks in my book.

Pearcey walks us through the philosophical history that led to the art and literature movements of the past 2000 years. The secular/sacred dichotomy, fact/value divide is insidious and deeply unbiblical. Her take on the last 150 years of modern art history is particularly insightful, and not always negative.

Her conclusion is excellent. The church needs to support Christian artists, not only denounce the ungodly secular ones, and certainly not support the pop Christian kitsch. If the church is to incarnate the Gospel, it needs to do so in its communal life together, but also in story and picture.

This is more a college textbook than a popular read, but I commend it to every thinking Christian. 4 stars.

View all my reviews

Watership Down - a Review

 

Watership Down by Richard Adams
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I’ve had this book for years. My kids read it way before I did. I finally got around to it.

Adams is a GREAT storyteller. He knows how to slow the pace for dramatic effect at the cliffhanger points. He can tell a story within a story, even 3 or 4 layers down.

The rabbit warren of Efrafa was clearly modeled after totalitarian states, while Hazel’s community was free and open. (He wrote in the early 1970s). No one was allowed to leave Efrafa and the feedings were strictly regimented. Fertility was almost nonexistent as a result. Hazel’s band, on the other hand, left a warren about to be destroyed by human development (a common 1970s theme). They have a sort of exodus, crossing a river, and a desert, and finding their way to a new promised land on Watership Down.

But the Egyptians pursue. And Adams keeps it suspenseful till the end who was going to win. Would it be Orwell’s 1984 at the end, where the jackboot is successfully applied to the protagonist, who is forced to submit to the dictator’s regime? Or would freedom win out? I’m not going to say – you should read it yourself.

I don’t know anything about Adams, but he seemed to be a naturalist – he keeps up the rabbit psychology throughout to stunning effect. Anxiety. Fear. Sensitivity to danger. But he also depicts the various human personae in them. The dictatorial based on pure strength (Woundwort). The prophetic keen on insight (Fiver). The leader who can decide what to do (Hazel). The strategic and loyal soldiers (Dandelion and Holly).

The need for does to carry on the community is particularly intriguing. They only realize this halfway through, and it is a shock to the system. Without women, we cannot carry on. In their own animal way, Adams shows us this human need. Yes they are weaker, they need protection and guidance through terrible trials. But they carry us forward in ways the bucks cannot on their own. Definitely not politically correct in our day.

This is a good book, a great story. I commend it to you. 3 stars.

View all my reviews

Saint Patrick's Breastplate - a Defense

I've had church people tell me that the hymn Saint Patrick's Breastplate is wicked, pagan, and superstitious.  Thankfully that doesn't seem to be the case in my current church, where we sang it the last 3 Sundays in the lead up to St. Patrick's Day, today.

Here's a verse by verse defense of this hymn.

1.  I bind unto myself to-day The strong Name of the Trinity,

By invocation of the same,  The Three in One and One in Three. 

2.  I bind this day to me for ever, By pow’r of faith, Christ’s Incarnation; 

His baptism in Jordan river; His death on Cross for my salvation; 

His bursting from the spicèd tomb; His riding up the Heav’nly way; 

His coming at the day of doom; I bind unto myself to-day. 

3.  I bind unto myself the power Of the great love of Cherubim;  

The sweet “Well done” in judgment hour;  The service of the Seraphim,  

Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,  The Patriarchs’ prayers, the Prophets’ scrolls, 

All good deeds done unto the Lord, And purity of virgin souls.

There's nothing much controversial in these first three verses, though the third starts to get at the issue.  Is there power in the service of the Seraphim, or the Patriach's prayers for us?  Yes, there is.  Not automatic divine power, but encouragement for us as we consider them, which is spiritual power and strength.

4.  I bind unto myself to-day The virtues of the star-lit heaven, 

The glorious sun’s life-giving ray, The whiteness of the moon at even,

The flashing of the lightning free, The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks, 

The stable earth, the deep salt sea, Around the old enduring rocks.

This is the most controverted verse.  Do the sun and moon have inherent powers to move us?  This is not really the point.  It's a poetic reference to Psalm 19 - the heavens declare the glory of God!  All creation sings His praise, and this points us to God's creation as a pointer to Him.  We can take encouragement from His sun, moon, lightning, ocean, and rocks as a sign of His limitless power to take us by the hand and guide us to His course.  Those who lack a poetic sense most object to this verse.  The point isn't that the stars have virtues in themselves, but that God has made them as pointers to Himself.  We look to creation as a source of strength to hold on to God's power in our lives.

5.  I bind unto myself to-day The pow’r of God to hold, and lead, 

His eye to watch, His might to stay, His ear to hearken to my need. 

The wisdom of my God to teach, His hand to guide, His shield to ward; 

The word of God to give me speech, His heavenly host to be my guard.

Wonderful verse - nothing objectionable here - much like "Be Thou My Vision."

6.  Against the demon snares of sin, The vice that gives temptation force, 

The natural lusts that war within, The hostile men that mar my course; 

Or few or many, far or nigh, In every place, and in all hours, 

Against their fierce hostility, I bind to me these holy powers. 

7.  Against all Satan’s spells and wiles, Against false words of heresy,

Against the knowledge that defiles, Against the heart’s idolatry, 

Against the wizard’s evil craft, Against the death-wound and the burning, 

The choking wave, the poison’d shaft, Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.

These verses articulate what few other hymns do.  We have enemies within and without that are seeking to do us in.  Our own temptations, and those hostile to the faith that are trying to take us out - spiritually and physically.  The last two lines of verse 7 refer to various methods of killing Christians, in martyrdom.  We seek protection from Christ against these acts.

8.  Christ be with me, Christ within me, Christ behind me, Christ before me,  

Christ beside me, Christ to win me, Christ to comfort and restore me, 

Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, 

Christ in hearts of all that love me, Christ in mouth of friend and stranger. 

9.  I bind unto myself the Name, The strong Name of the Trinity; 

By invocation of the same, The Three in One, and One in Three. 

Of Whom all nature hath creation: Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:  

Praise to the Lord of my salvation, Salvation is of Christ the Lord. 

8-9 are a wonderful paean of praise to our Savior who is with us, and also the eternal Trinity.

Pride and Prejudice

I recently rewatched the BBC/A&E version of Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth.

It is a real case study and illustration of George Gilder's Men and Marriage.  Men are civilized by women when they seek to marry.  Darcy is a jerk when he first meets Elizabeth.  But as he seeks to pursue her, his jerkiness subsides, as he knows it must.  She's a jerk, too, at the beginning.  Love tempers both men's and women's rough edges.

It's a very Victorian-etiquette setting, Pride and Prejudice.  Maybe they were overly sensitive to things.  But we've been so desensitized to proper relations between the sexes, we could learn a lot from this story.  Men should be more accommodating to the feelings of sensible women like Jane and Elizabeth.  But less so to foolish women like Mrs. Bennett (her nerves!), and Lydia and Kitty.  Mr. Bennett was too accommodating to the latter three, and it cost him dearly.  The story illustrates in stark contrast the recent interest in distinguishing empathy from sympathy (Joe Rigney).

Something new I found on this rewatch was how the social prejudice against Mr Darcy hardened, even as Elizabeth discovered his true, good character.  At first it was the reverse.  Everyone thought him handsome and wonderful because he was so rich, but Elizabeth despised him for his gruff and prideful manner.  Proverbs 18:17 came to mind.  "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."  Elizabeth believed Wickham's accusations against Darcy too quickly, without hearing the other side.  When she learned the truth, she was ashamed and repented of her prejudice, just as Darcy came to repent of his pride before her.

This is a true classic everyone should read or watch.  Peter Leithart has a great saying, "Real men read Jane Austen," and I agree.  To dismiss this great work because it's overly feminine and is just a bunch of letter writing between overly-wrought women is foolish.  Making good matches in marriages is foundational to society and it is taken seriously by Austen, as it should be by all of us.

Take up and read.

A Defense of Lent

What to do about Lent?

The kneejerk reaction in most of my circles is to mock the "what are you giving up" practice.

I disagree with that reaction and mockery, and we'll get to that, but first we have to clear the haze of centuries.

The reason we seek to do more with the church year is to avoid a rationalistic Gnosticism.  This view assumes that knowledge is the key, thinking about theological things, while physical action means little to nothing.  But we need to tune our physical lives to true theology.

Preaching that ignores the seasons is one form of this.  Many churches pride themselves on continuing to preach through Leviticus or Galatians, straight through Advent and Christmas, or through Lent and Easter.  It's more helpful when the Word preached fits with the season.  The 33 part sermon through Galatians can always be paused for a few weeks for the church year.

Another form of this Gnosticism is assuming Lent is inherently superstitious.  The reformers like Calvin understandably thought this way, as they saw extreme abuses up close, oppressing the conscience of the faithful, and wiped them away.  Today, we don't want to just react against Rome, making sure to do nothing that looks anything like them.  Instead we want to form a robust Christian life that includes our traditions and actions, without worrying if it "feels Catholic."  The problem isn't feeling Catholic, but burdening the conscience unduly.

The real reason for the church year was to focus on the life and ministry of Jesus, His main redemptive acts for us, and then to incarnate that in specific ways in our lives.  We've been doing well on that score with Christmas and Easter and a couple of other holidays.  We have family gatherings, feasts, presents, etc.

But when we get to Lent (and Advent), most Protestants balk.  If we do anything more than think about it, think about Christmas coming all during Advent, think about Easter coming during Lent, then we're convinced we're headed for Rome.  But Lent is a separate thing and more than just a build up to Easter.  It's for focusing on the ministry, temptation, suffering, self-denial, and obedience of Jesus, not just looking forward to His resurrection.  It's for remembering that God catches up all of OUR suffering, obedience, self-denial, etc in our lives into His redemptive plan for us, as He did with Jesus.  We're forgetting our union with Christ in His redemptive work.  Not that we're doing anything redemptive ourselves of course, but we are to follow in His steps.

We are inconsistent in shedding the penitential seasons while embracing the festive holidays.  We cling to this inconsistency because we think our church forefathers abused Lent more than they did Christmas.  But that isn't the case.  Christmas had as much bawdy revelry as Lent did meritorious self-flagellation.  Both were abused.  Both should be reclaimed.

It's true the New Covenant is grace upon grace.  Grace should be the emphasis, more than depriving ourselves.  Doug Wilson is right to point out that there was only ONE day in the Old Covenant to afflict our souls (Leviticus 16:31).  But the point of Lent isn't to afflict our souls for 40 days.  It's to remember Jesus' affliction, and take some small physical actions to enter into that affliction.  Not that we have to, or that it merits us anything.  But "it is good that I was afflicted" (Ps 119:71).

What good is it to set up a tree, and give your son a nerf gun at Christmas, to reflect the gift of Christ to us for our salvation?  Why even do it?  We shouldn't do it, many argue, because it's so paltry.  But we do it because it's what we CAN do as weak and frail humans to honor Christ's gift to us.  What good is it to give up fast food for Lent, to reflect the suffering and crucifixion of our Lord?  Why even do it?  Because it's what we can do as weak and frail humans to honor Christ's sacrifice for us.  Neither need be meritorious or self-focused.  We are incarnating Christ's actions to us as best we can.

So remove the Gnosticism from Lent, like you have from Christmas and Easter.  Do something tangible to remind yourself of Christ's self-denial, and that you His servant are not above your master.  It could be family devotions reading through hymns about our Lord's passion.  It could be giving up certain foods (bad for you anyway), or alcohol.  It could be praying for the persecuted church more intensely than usual.  The options are endless if you think about it.

I agree with my Lent-averse brothers that no such practice should be a conscience thing: if you don't do anything for Lent, don't feel guilty before the Lord.  Or a legalism thing: don't feel like you're meriting something with God for doing it.

But it's a season to do something tangible to acknowledge Christ's suffering for you, and that you are willing to suffer for Him, as He predicts we will (2 Timothy 3:12).