Adam Shields
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-tony-diterlizzi/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-tony-diterlizzi/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
This is a single review for the whole trilogy. I am cross posting on all three books.
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-tony-diterlizzi/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
This is a single review for the whole trilogy. I am cross posting on all three books.
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-tony-diterlizzi/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
This is a single review for the whole trilogy. I am cross posting on all three books.
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-tony-diterlizzi/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
This is a single review for the whole trilogy. I am cross posting on all three books.
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-tony-diterlizzi/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: An exploration of the season of Epiphany, a celebration of the glory of Christ's incarnation and revelation of himself to us.
I appreciate this book while also being a bit frustrated with it and I am not completely sure why. I started it last year during the Epiphany season and didn't finish it. So I started it again right at the end of Christmas season so that I would have it done by the start of Epiphany. But again I didn't finish and I really forced myself to finish. I have previously read Rutledge's book on Advent, which is mostly a collection of sermons. And I read about 75% of Rutledge's' Crucifixion and I have dipped into several other of her sermon collections, but again, never finished them.
Sermon collections are not something that really are intended to read straight through. So dipping into them but not finishing is I think to be expected for the genre. But there is something else that I think feels off here. I very much appreciate Rutledge's wisdom and attention to the tradition of the Episcopal church. She turns 87 later this year and we need to pay attention to elders who have seen changes in history. I also think that she is one of the best preachers I have ever heard. I have spent a lot of time watching her old sermons on youtube.
The third things I really appreciate about Rutledge that is in full force here is her attention to Jesus. Rutledge was part of the first generation of women to be ordained in the Episcopal church. That Episcopal church has not always centered Jesus and I think at times she is preaching to a sliver of the church that hasn't centered Jesus. But at the same time, I am not part of that part of the church. I do think there is a need to pay attention to Jesus and his humanity and his death and resurrection. But as much as I did appreciate learning about the season (she is pointing out that Epiphany is a season, not just a single day feast) that centers on Christ's incarnation and glory the attention felt more like retrieval of tradition instead of attention to the need for a season of epiphany.
Maybe I am just the wrong reader for this book, because part of the conception of the whole series is new attention to the liturgical calendar. I want to understand tradition and why the liturgical seasons are as they are, but I didn't feel connected to the great tradition for the purpose of the future. I don't remember where I read it, but somewhere in James KA Smith's work, he talks about the problems of participating in the liturgy while in a culture that doesn't either believe in Christianity or recognize the liturgy. Based on my memory, I think he was talking about the problems of fasting or participating in lent and other seasons that were intended to be communal, solely as an individual. Smith is pointing out that we are not Christians on our own, but in community even as that community is not reflected in broader culture.
Part of Smith's critique of The Benedict Option was that Dreher was advocating retreat from culture when Smith believes that Augustine and others were calling for engagement with culture. What we have seen from Dreher and a significant part of the American church is a reliance on a strongman to get his own way, instead of seeking creative ways to live out the life of Christ within a culture that is no longer designed for you.
I think both Lent and Christmas were writing consciously to help the reader understand how to celebrate the liturgical seasons within a culture that is not designed for us. And in particular how to celebrate when many cultural values are overtly opposed to the underlying values of the season we are celebrating. I don't want to be too strong here, because Rutledge is focusing on glory, in a way that is very cross cultural. I think she is right that the church doesn't understand glory in the way that earlier generations of the church did. But I also didn't feel like I was given much more than just the reality of that lack. Maybe part of the problem is that for Lent and Christmas the problem is that the culture isn't celebrating what the season is celebrating, but Rutlege is pointing out that the church isn't celebrating what the season is celebrating. Those are different problems.
It feels contradictory to both say that this book was too long and didn't do enough, but that is what I am left with. It is about 50 percent longer than Lent (although only about 10 pages longer than Christmas) and I think it either needed to cut 30-50 pages, or pivot to a different lens to look at Epiphany. It isn't that I think anything here is bad or heretical or wrong. It is that either it should have been shorter or covered more ground.
This originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/epiphany/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: An exploration of the season of Epiphany, a celebration of the glory of Christ's incarnation and revelation of himself to us.
I appreciate this book while also being a bit frustrated with it and I am not completely sure why. I started it last year during the Epiphany season and didn't finish it. So I started it again right at the end of Christmas season so that I would have it done by the start of Epiphany. But again I didn't finish and I really forced myself to finish. I have previously read Rutledge's book on Advent, which is mostly a collection of sermons. And I read about 75% of Rutledge's' Crucifixion and I have dipped into several other of her sermon collections, but again, never finished them.
Sermon collections are not something that really are intended to read straight through. So dipping into them but not finishing is I think to be expected for the genre. But there is something else that I think feels off here. I very much appreciate Rutledge's wisdom and attention to the tradition of the Episcopal church. She turns 87 later this year and we need to pay attention to elders who have seen changes in history. I also think that she is one of the best preachers I have ever heard. I have spent a lot of time watching her old sermons on youtube.
The third things I really appreciate about Rutledge that is in full force here is her attention to Jesus. Rutledge was part of the first generation of women to be ordained in the Episcopal church. That Episcopal church has not always centered Jesus and I think at times she is preaching to a sliver of the church that hasn't centered Jesus. But at the same time, I am not part of that part of the church. I do think there is a need to pay attention to Jesus and his humanity and his death and resurrection. But as much as I did appreciate learning about the season (she is pointing out that Epiphany is a season, not just a single day feast) that centers on Christ's incarnation and glory the attention felt more like retrieval of tradition instead of attention to the need for a season of epiphany.
Maybe I am just the wrong reader for this book, because part of the conception of the whole series is new attention to the liturgical calendar. I want to understand tradition and why the liturgical seasons are as they are, but I didn't feel connected to the great tradition for the purpose of the future. I don't remember where I read it, but somewhere in James KA Smith's work, he talks about the problems of participating in the liturgy while in a culture that doesn't either believe in Christianity or recognize the liturgy. Based on my memory, I think he was talking about the problems of fasting or participating in lent and other seasons that were intended to be communal, solely as an individual. Smith is pointing out that we are not Christians on our own, but in community even as that community is not reflected in broader culture.
Part of Smith's critique of The Benedict Option was that Dreher was advocating retreat from culture when Smith believes that Augustine and others were calling for engagement with culture. What we have seen from Dreher and a significant part of the American church is a reliance on a strongman to get his own way, instead of seeking creative ways to live out the life of Christ within a culture that is no longer designed for you.
I think both Lent and Christmas were writing consciously to help the reader understand how to celebrate the liturgical seasons within a culture that is not designed for us. And in particular how to celebrate when many cultural values are overtly opposed to the underlying values of the season we are celebrating. I don't want to be too strong here, because Rutledge is focusing on glory, in a way that is very cross cultural. I think she is right that the church doesn't understand glory in the way that earlier generations of the church did. But I also didn't feel like I was given much more than just the reality of that lack. Maybe part of the problem is that for Lent and Christmas the problem is that the culture isn't celebrating what the season is celebrating, but Rutlege is pointing out that the church isn't celebrating what the season is celebrating. Those are different problems.
It feels contradictory to both say that this book was too long and didn't do enough, but that is what I am left with. It is about 50 percent longer than Lent (although only about 10 pages longer than Christmas) and I think it either needed to cut 30-50 pages, or pivot to a different lens to look at Epiphany. It isn't that I think anything here is bad or heretical or wrong. It is that either it should have been shorter or covered more ground.
This originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/epiphany/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: The first definitive style biography of King in nearly 40 years.
At the end of the audiobook is an interview with Jonathan Eig and Lerone A. Martin, author of The Gospel of J Edgar Hoover. Their discussion about the lack of full biographies and the new sources is compelling. I had not realized that it has been over 40 years since Stephen Oates biography and nearly 40 years since Garrow's biography. Because I have read more recent books like The Seminarian and the The Sword and the Shield (joint biography of King and Malcolm X) as well as a number of histories were King played a major role in just didn't realize until I heard that interview how long it had been since a full biography.
Also detailed in that interview is new sources have been found or released. Eig is a journalist by training and history. You can tell that in his writing, but we are at that transition period when the Civil Rights generation is passing away. Eig says he was able to interview over 200 people who knew King. Some like Juanita Abernathy knew King well and were known figures. But Eig also interviewed minor figures, like his barber in Montgomery.
I am letting that interview at the end frame some of my thinking about the book, but it was clear from the start of the biography that Eig was trying to portray King as a flawed man. Similar to Alter's framing of Jimmy Carter, Eig has significant respect for King as a subject, but to write well about the whole man we do need to understand his weaknesses. I am going to talk more below about how he handles those weaknesses, but in that interview he said he wanted to keep King from being reduced and simplified.
One last point from the interview is that one of the significant sources that is fairly new are FBI files. Not all files have been declassified yet, but some have. Another set was declassified after the book was released. And another large set it scheduled to be released in 2027. Eig has no doubt about King's involvement in extramarital affairs. But he balances that with a more clear understanding of how J Edgar Hoover and the FBI as a whole were not just observers of affairs, but significant opponents of not just the civil rights movement in general but King in particular. The antagonism of the FBI and Hoover in particular was a significant part of how the shift in attitude toward both King and the civil rights movement. It was not just the point when King voiced opposition to the Vietnam war, but throughout the whole movement the FBI was acting as a propaganda machine against the civil rights movement, not just with the public but especially in harming the relationship that King had with the President and the Department of Justice. The affairs were one excuse, but not the first excuse or the main excuse for why the civil rights movement and King in particular were dangerous. The very next day after the 1963 March on Washington, the FBI puts out a memo labeling King as the greatest threat to American democracy. Hoover, as detailed in Lerone Martin's book was a Christian Nationalist with strong views of white racial superiority. He both viewed the civil rights movement as a communist plant or distraction, but also a violation of the natural order.
After King's assassination, COINTELPRO became better known for its work at undermining the civil rights movement with informants and plants and work to internally weaken civil rights organization including threats against funders, but the formal work of COINTELPRO was in existence by 1956. The "anonymous" letter encouraging King to commit suicide is well known, but less well know is how much effort the FBI put into seeding false or misleading stories into he press about Civil Rights leaders (including King) and working to undermine financial support of the movement. I suspect that as much as we know and is detailed here in Eig's book, more will be revealed in upcoming document releases.
Part of what I think is handled well by Eig is King's limitations. Everyone has a limited capacity (no one can do it all or be all things). King was empathetic, a great orator and deeply interested in his faith and justice. But he wasn't a grass roots organizer like Ella Baker or a theoretical philosopher of race and justice. His orientation to avoid interpersonal conflict meant that personal negotiation with political or business opponents to integration had a different private and public mode. But more importantly, his lack of balancing factors in his life meant that he was always traveling and following the action, not focused on proactive work. (Again, this was influenced by the FBI's work to interrupt funding.) The effort of keeping SCLC funded and running was left him unable to be with people in more grassroots ways that kept him energized. King was pushed into a role of icon at a very young age, which asked him to be all things in a way that no human could have.
There is a very good discussion about the 1965-1968 era and the ways that the Civil Rights movements began to break apart. That has of course been discussed widely in many different ways. Part of the traditional discussion is the slowness of change. Brown v Board and Montgomery happened in 1954, but laws around housing segregation, the biggest factor in school segregation in metro urban areas was not passed until 1968. The Cold War, one of the background factors in propelling civil rights forward crashed into Vietnam protests, which lowered the pressure on federal officials to respond to global interests. The slowing of US economic growth in the mid 1960s which moved to rapid inflation and recession in the 1970s and 80s allowed politicians and business leaders to scapegoat civil rights, affirmative action and welfare programs instead of globalization and aging business infrastructure. Many discussion about the breakup of the civil rights movement is about the movement stripped of the larger context of history. I think Eig could have included more about the broader context, but he included more about the context than what I have seen in other presentations.
As I was reading Eig's book I started reading an advance copy of Malcolm Foley's Anti-Greed Gospel. Foley is presenting a model of discussion of race centered on racial capitalism. Broadly, this can be thought of an a different mode of discussion based on racism as an economic reality similar to the way that Critical Race Theory is centered on racism as a legal reality. CRT I think has value in talking about how slow structural changes to US law and practice were. The fact that my kids today go to a school that is 90% racial minorities and 70% low income, when another school just a half mile away in the same district is 11% Black or Hispanic and 7% low income is a structural issues. But racial capitalism as an idea I think also speaks to that structural issue (resistance to changing school zoning because of its impact on housing prices) as well as the way that funding for the Civil Rights movement drying up exactly when it started to expand its target beyond voting rights. King always had a vision for the role of economics in racism, but many of the white participants in those movement did not fully embrace that. And the pragmatic supporters of desegregation who were more interested its impact on anti-communism efforts than on the way that the civil rights movement was connected to a global anti colonialism movement fell away when King started speaking about Vietnam.
No book is perfect, and it is difficult to present a figure like King well when so much of his story is fixed in the minds of most readers. But I think there is value in King: A Life not just because there is new data and that Eig spends a lot of time on Coretta in ways that some others do not (including being the first to write about personal letters between Coretta and Martin). Eig is a punchy writer and the story moves along with force that is not always the case with long biographies. Obviously, this is a book that won a Pulitzer Prize, so it does not need my stamp of approval. About halfway through the book I was not sure there was much different form Oates biography and other shorter versions of King that I had read, but I think the second half of the book showed why this biography has been so well received.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/king/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: The first definitive style biography of King in nearly 40 years.
At the end of the audiobook is an interview with Jonathan Eig and Lerone A. Martin, author of The Gospel of J Edgar Hoover. Their discussion about the lack of full biographies and the new sources is compelling. I had not realized that it has been over 40 years since Stephen Oates biography and nearly 40 years since Garrow's biography. Because I have read more recent books like The Seminarian and the The Sword and the Shield (joint biography of King and Malcolm X) as well as a number of histories were King played a major role in just didn't realize until I heard that interview how long it had been since a full biography.
Also detailed in that interview is new sources have been found or released. Eig is a journalist by training and history. You can tell that in his writing, but we are at that transition period when the Civil Rights generation is passing away. Eig says he was able to interview over 200 people who knew King. Some like Juanita Abernathy knew King well and were known figures. But Eig also interviewed minor figures, like his barber in Montgomery.
I am letting that interview at the end frame some of my thinking about the book, but it was clear from the start of the biography that Eig was trying to portray King as a flawed man. Similar to Alter's framing of Jimmy Carter, Eig has significant respect for King as a subject, but to write well about the whole man we do need to understand his weaknesses. I am going to talk more below about how he handles those weaknesses, but in that interview he said he wanted to keep King from being reduced and simplified.
One last point from the interview is that one of the significant sources that is fairly new are FBI files. Not all files have been declassified yet, but some have. Another set was declassified after the book was released. And another large set it scheduled to be released in 2027. Eig has no doubt about King's involvement in extramarital affairs. But he balances that with a more clear understanding of how J Edgar Hoover and the FBI as a whole were not just observers of affairs, but significant opponents of not just the civil rights movement in general but King in particular. The antagonism of the FBI and Hoover in particular was a significant part of how the shift in attitude toward both King and the civil rights movement. It was not just the point when King voiced opposition to the Vietnam war, but throughout the whole movement the FBI was acting as a propaganda machine against the civil rights movement, not just with the public but especially in harming the relationship that King had with the President and the Department of Justice. The affairs were one excuse, but not the first excuse or the main excuse for why the civil rights movement and King in particular were dangerous. The very next day after the 1963 March on Washington, the FBI puts out a memo labeling King as the greatest threat to American democracy. Hoover, as detailed in Lerone Martin's book was a Christian Nationalist with strong views of white racial superiority. He both viewed the civil rights movement as a communist plant or distraction, but also a violation of the natural order.
After King's assassination, COINTELPRO became better known for its work at undermining the civil rights movement with informants and plants and work to internally weaken civil rights organization including threats against funders, but the formal work of COINTELPRO was in existence by 1956. The "anonymous" letter encouraging King to commit suicide is well known, but less well know is how much effort the FBI put into seeding false or misleading stories into he press about Civil Rights leaders (including King) and working to undermine financial support of the movement. I suspect that as much as we know and is detailed here in Eig's book, more will be revealed in upcoming document releases.
Part of what I think is handled well by Eig is King's limitations. Everyone has a limited capacity (no one can do it all or be all things). King was empathetic, a great orator and deeply interested in his faith and justice. But he wasn't a grass roots organizer like Ella Baker or a theoretical philosopher of race and justice. His orientation to avoid interpersonal conflict meant that personal negotiation with political or business opponents to integration had a different private and public mode. But more importantly, his lack of balancing factors in his life meant that he was always traveling and following the action, not focused on proactive work. (Again, this was influenced by the FBI's work to interrupt funding.) The effort of keeping SCLC funded and running was left him unable to be with people in more grassroots ways that kept him energized. King was pushed into a role of icon at a very young age, which asked him to be all things in a way that no human could have.
There is a very good discussion about the 1965-1968 era and the ways that the Civil Rights movements began to break apart. That has of course been discussed widely in many different ways. Part of the traditional discussion is the slowness of change. Brown v Board and Montgomery happened in 1954, but laws around housing segregation, the biggest factor in school segregation in metro urban areas was not passed until 1968. The Cold War, one of the background factors in propelling civil rights forward crashed into Vietnam protests, which lowered the pressure on federal officials to respond to global interests. The slowing of US economic growth in the mid 1960s which moved to rapid inflation and recession in the 1970s and 80s allowed politicians and business leaders to scapegoat civil rights, affirmative action and welfare programs instead of globalization and aging business infrastructure. Many discussion about the breakup of the civil rights movement is about the movement stripped of the larger context of history. I think Eig could have included more about the broader context, but he included more about the context than what I have seen in other presentations.
As I was reading Eig's book I started reading an advance copy of Malcolm Foley's Anti-Greed Gospel. Foley is presenting a model of discussion of race centered on racial capitalism. Broadly, this can be thought of an a different mode of discussion based on racism as an economic reality similar to the way that Critical Race Theory is centered on racism as a legal reality. CRT I think has value in talking about how slow structural changes to US law and practice were. The fact that my kids today go to a school that is 90% racial minorities and 70% low income, when another school just a half mile away in the same district is 11% Black or Hispanic and 7% low income is a structural issues. But racial capitalism as an idea I think also speaks to that structural issue (resistance to changing school zoning because of its impact on housing prices) as well as the way that funding for the Civil Rights movement drying up exactly when it started to expand its target beyond voting rights. King always had a vision for the role of economics in racism, but many of the white participants in those movement did not fully embrace that. And the pragmatic supporters of desegregation who were more interested its impact on anti-communism efforts than on the way that the civil rights movement was connected to a global anti colonialism movement fell away when King started speaking about Vietnam.
No book is perfect, and it is difficult to present a figure like King well when so much of his story is fixed in the minds of most readers. But I think there is value in King: A Life not just because there is new data and that Eig spends a lot of time on Coretta in ways that some others do not (including being the first to write about personal letters between Coretta and Martin). Eig is a punchy writer and the story moves along with force that is not always the case with long biographies. Obviously, this is a book that won a Pulitzer Prize, so it does not need my stamp of approval. About halfway through the book I was not sure there was much different form Oates biography and other shorter versions of King that I had read, but I think the second half of the book showed why this biography has been so well received.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/king/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A widower inherits a British estate, but he may lose it before he is even unpacked.
I am trying to read more fiction. This is a goal that I have almost every year. I really am conviced that fiction is important, but I have a tendancy to gravitate toward "important" books. I saw that the Book of Hours was on sale and I picked it up. I read his book The Maestro when I was in high school and I enjoyed it. It was a book about a musician who was a real artist and as he came to faith he saw he could incorporate his faith and art. I real a lot of Christian novels as a teen and I have read very few past my teen years because so few felt worthwhile.
As I read The Book of Hours I couldn't help but think about it as a novel version of a Hallmark movie. I enjoy a Hallmark movie very now and then, but I don't really confused it for great art. It is fluff and fluff every now and then if fine. As much as can enjoy some fluff here and there, I do think that Karen Swallow Prior's critique of Christians as overly attached to Victorian values, and mistake those Victorian values for Christian ones fits here. This is a sentimental novel that deserves the critique that Prior has for senatamental novels. But it also fits all of the standard Hallmark tropes. A widower from out of town inherits an estate. He is penniless and finds the estate is going to soon be sold for back taxes. He meets the town's young (single) doctor who immediately hates him for not caring about the property and allowing it to fall into disrepair. There is a greedy developer to provide some tension.
And while I don't think it really makes sense within the story, the widower's wife and her beloved aunt jointly wrote him clues before they both died that he has to find. If he does, he may find something valuable that he can sell to keep the property. That is if the sketchy gardener (who used to date the doctor) doesn't stop them first. Along the way the widower and the doctor help the local vicar in his fight to get the church bells reinstated in the town again so that the community can remember that God. The sentamental, nearly love at first sight, romance between the grieving widower who seems to have gotten over his late wife's cancer death very quickly after showing up doesn't have any real depth.
The story is fine. For the $2 price I paid, I am not disappointed, but I also have no real interest in picking up another book by the same author. There are a lot of good novels that have more depth to them than this one.
I posted this on my blog originally at https://bookwi.se/book-of-hours/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A widower inherits a British estate, but he may lose it before he is even unpacked.
I am trying to read more fiction. This is a goal that I have almost every year. I really am conviced that fiction is important, but I have a tendancy to gravitate toward "important" books. I saw that the Book of Hours was on sale and I picked it up. I read his book The Maestro when I was in high school and I enjoyed it. It was a book about a musician who was a real artist and as he came to faith he saw he could incorporate his faith and art. I real a lot of Christian novels as a teen and I have read very few past my teen years because so few felt worthwhile.
As I read The Book of Hours I couldn't help but think about it as a novel version of a Hallmark movie. I enjoy a Hallmark movie very now and then, but I don't really confused it for great art. It is fluff and fluff every now and then if fine. As much as can enjoy some fluff here and there, I do think that Karen Swallow Prior's critique of Christians as overly attached to Victorian values, and mistake those Victorian values for Christian ones fits here. This is a sentimental novel that deserves the critique that Prior has for senatamental novels. But it also fits all of the standard Hallmark tropes. A widower from out of town inherits an estate. He is penniless and finds the estate is going to soon be sold for back taxes. He meets the town's young (single) doctor who immediately hates him for not caring about the property and allowing it to fall into disrepair. There is a greedy developer to provide some tension.
And while I don't think it really makes sense within the story, the widower's wife and her beloved aunt jointly wrote him clues before they both died that he has to find. If he does, he may find something valuable that he can sell to keep the property. That is if the sketchy gardener (who used to date the doctor) doesn't stop them first. Along the way the widower and the doctor help the local vicar in his fight to get the church bells reinstated in the town again so that the community can remember that God. The sentamental, nearly love at first sight, romance between the grieving widower who seems to have gotten over his late wife's cancer death very quickly after showing up doesn't have any real depth.
The story is fine. For the $2 price I paid, I am not disappointed, but I also have no real interest in picking up another book by the same author. There are a lot of good novels that have more depth to them than this one.
I posted this on my blog originally at https://bookwi.se/book-of-hours/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A graphic novel biography of Lewis and Tolkien’s friendship.
This is the fifth book I have read by John Hendrix. I have written about his biographies of John Brown and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is more like the biography of Bonhoeffer than John Brown. The biography of John Brown was about 40 pages and more similar to Hendrix’s books about Jesus in that length and format. The longer biographies, this one and the Bonhoeffer one, are a combination of text and graphics. It is not unusually for there to be 200 words on a page. Some pages are predominately graphics, especially the sections where a lion and a wizard are narrating the story. But there are long sections that are more text heavy.
And when you think about these as graphic novels, you should think about a graphic novel as a format, not an age target. These are readable for late teens, but they are not children’s books. There are long sections about the academic meaning of myth, or how stories communicate truth. I have seen a couple of reviews that thought those longer sections were not as helpful, but I can see their point. This isn’t a biography of the two men as much as it is a biography of the conversation that Tolkien and Lewis and another friend had about viewing Christianity as “true myth” that helped Lewis overcome his objections to Christianity.
That famous conversation wasn’t just instrumental to Lewis’ conversion to Christianity, it was also instrumental to Christianity reclaiming story as a feature in understanding the Bible and the world around us. I recently read a book about how Lewis was influenced by medieval thought and Hendrix’s book also pointed out how Lewis and Tolkien, because they were shaped by literature, helped to move Protestant Christianity to rediscover story and myth as important intellectual categories. Myth doesn’t mean “untrue” or fiction, myth in Lewis and Tolkien's view was about deeper systems of thought. I don’t think that Lewis or Tolkien would approve of Jordan Peterson’s use of the Old Testament, but Peterson has been influenced by the idea of myth that Lewis and Tolkien were promoting and which is discussed well here.
Necessarily, graphic novels use the format of image to communicate. I think Hendrix does a great job of communicating information, using the format to communicate in ways that text alone would make difficult. And he includes a lightness and humor to his books that is appropriate to the subject, but make the books enjoyable.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/mythmakers/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A graphic novel biography of Lewis and Tolkien’s friendship.
This is the fifth book I have read by John Hendrix. I have written about his biographies of John Brown and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is more like the biography of Bonhoeffer than John Brown. The biography of John Brown was about 40 pages and more similar to Hendrix’s books about Jesus in that length and format. The longer biographies, this one and the Bonhoeffer one, are a combination of text and graphics. It is not unusually for there to be 200 words on a page. Some pages are predominately graphics, especially the sections where a lion and a wizard are narrating the story. But there are long sections that are more text heavy.
And when you think about these as graphic novels, you should think about a graphic novel as a format, not an age target. These are readable for late teens, but they are not children’s books. There are long sections about the academic meaning of myth, or how stories communicate truth. I have seen a couple of reviews that thought those longer sections were not as helpful, but I can see their point. This isn’t a biography of the two men as much as it is a biography of the conversation that Tolkien and Lewis and another friend had about viewing Christianity as “true myth” that helped Lewis overcome his objections to Christianity.
That famous conversation wasn’t just instrumental to Lewis’ conversion to Christianity, it was also instrumental to Christianity reclaiming story as a feature in understanding the Bible and the world around us. I recently read a book about how Lewis was influenced by medieval thought and Hendrix’s book also pointed out how Lewis and Tolkien, because they were shaped by literature, helped to move Protestant Christianity to rediscover story and myth as important intellectual categories. Myth doesn’t mean “untrue” or fiction, myth in Lewis and Tolkien's view was about deeper systems of thought. I don’t think that Lewis or Tolkien would approve of Jordan Peterson’s use of the Old Testament, but Peterson has been influenced by the idea of myth that Lewis and Tolkien were promoting and which is discussed well here.
Necessarily, graphic novels use the format of image to communicate. I think Hendrix does a great job of communicating information, using the format to communicate in ways that text alone would make difficult. And he includes a lightness and humor to his books that is appropriate to the subject, but make the books enjoyable.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/mythmakers/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A comprehensive biography from an admiring, but critical author.
I picked up His Very Best on audiobook a few days before President Carter passed away. I had wanted to read one of the recent biographies for a while, and the sale price, and then his death moved it to the top of my list.
It is very clear that Jonathan Alter wanted to reassess Carter's presidency and his place in history. Alter frames the book with Carter's attempt to do his "very best." The line is from a question that Carter was asked when he was applying to work with Hyman G. Rickover in the Navy's nuclear program. Rickover asked Carter if he had done his best while at the Naval Academy. And Carter told him that he had not always done his best. But that question haunted Carter and much of his life, he did attempt to his best all the time.
Carter had the mind and personality of an engineer. He expected that when people were presented with the facts they would come to the same conclusions he did. One of Carter's real strengths as the president was that he often thought about the long term in ways that many politicians do not. Carter was far from perfect, but many of the most important results of Carter's legacy took years and in some cases decades, to start to be seen.
Carter was split. He is known for his ability to talk with people do the long term work to bring people together. But he also was known by Congress at the time as not particularly caring about their opinion and at times being outright offensive. The Panama Canal deal happened in large part because his people did cut deals and drew people into supporting a project that was important for the long term. He spent weeks meeting in small groups with not just congress, but with local and state officials who would provide cover for Congressional members who he needed to take a hard vote. But Carter's health care plan, which he knew was of significant importance to Ted Kennedy, was announced without telling Kennedy or consulting him in its development. Carter often offended his own party even more than the GOP because Carter opposed local initiatives as unhelpful pork projects.
Outsiders often come to the office of the President and not understanding how much of the job is acting and being presidential. Carter thought it was a waste of time and money to play "Hail to the Chief" when he entered a room and ordered it stopped. But it was quietly brought back after about a year because his team came to realize that some of the pomp was important to maintaining the office. Carter often wrote his own speeches or significantly edited the work of his speechwriters to remove all of the rhetorical flourishes. His speaking style was bare facts and that made him less interesting to listen to compared to Reagan and others who drew people in with stories and rhetoric. Again, it seems that as his presidency went on, Carter allowed his speechwriters more leeway and his speeches got better.
Part of the thesis of the book is that he was a far better president than what is commonly assumed, but that his post-presidency was less important than assumed. The Carter Center has done good work. Habitat for Humanity is the largest non-profit home builder in the world and in 2022 was the sixth largest home building in the US of any type. Alter is not trying to minimize Carter's post-presidency, but rather reframe it in relation to the presidency and the presidency is the most powerful job in the world and no other can compare.
Part of the post-presidency is that while Carter did have some success in diplomacy, he had a lot of failures and he had bad relationships with all subsequent presidents. Carter wanted to play a role, but didn't seem to understand how to relate to his successors. Routinely when he was involved in a diplomatic role, he would talk to the press before he would talk to the sitting president. And he didn't follow directions or give credit to the sitting presidents well.
Carter was both humble and quite proud. He was uninterested in personal wealth. He did not accept speaking fees, or if he did, those speaking fees were donated to the Carter Center or other non-profits. The home he lived in was worth less than $200,000 at the time of his death. When working in at Atlanta, he and Roselyn slept in a Murphy bed in his Roselyn's office not a full apartment. But he had an ego and it was often bruised.
This biography shows a flawed man who worked hard trying to prove himself to others. He was shaped by his faith, but simply having faith does not mean that you are not flawed. While Roselyn was a significant advisor during the presidency and she changed the role of the First Lady to be more policy oriented, Carter routinely made decision without consulting her, especially early in their marriage. While Carter did appoint more racial minorities and women to the judiciary than all previous presidents combined and had a diverse cabinet and senior advisors, he did not have a great record on race or gender in all areas.
Carter attempted to get his church to desegregate in the 1960s, but his attempt failed. And he maintained his membership in that segregated church until he left the presidency. Atler and others believe that much of the work of his post-presidency was animated by his lack of effort during the civil rights era. There is a tension, if Carter had been active in civil rights, he would not have become an elected official. But Carter did not seem to have taken real accountability publicly for positions and actions that he did take which were harmful to women or racial minorities. And at least some of the things he did claim to have done seem to be exaggerations.
The only type of humans there are, are flawed ones. This books does not paint Carter as a hero. But it does show him as someone that tried very hard to do what he thought was right. And there is an important role for that type of book. I did not come to this biography blind. I had previously read Carter's memoir A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety, Balmer's spiritual biography, Redeemer, and several of Carter's other books, only writing about his book on faith. I have also picked up a longer book about Carter's presidency, President Carter and Kai Bird's biography, but I do not think I will read those soon. From what I have gleaned, Alter's biography seems to be considered the best.
This was originally posted to my blog at https://bookwi.se/his-very-best/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A comprehensive biography from an admiring, but critical author.
I picked up His Very Best on audiobook a few days before President Carter passed away. I had wanted to read one of the recent biographies for a while, and the sale price, and then his death moved it to the top of my list.
It is very clear that Jonathan Alter wanted to reassess Carter's presidency and his place in history. Alter frames the book with Carter's attempt to do his "very best." The line is from a question that Carter was asked when he was applying to work with Hyman G. Rickover in the Navy's nuclear program. Rickover asked Carter if he had done his best while at the Naval Academy. And Carter told him that he had not always done his best. But that question haunted Carter and much of his life, he did attempt to his best all the time.
Carter had the mind and personality of an engineer. He expected that when people were presented with the facts they would come to the same conclusions he did. One of Carter's real strengths as the president was that he often thought about the long term in ways that many politicians do not. Carter was far from perfect, but many of the most important results of Carter's legacy took years and in some cases decades, to start to be seen.
Carter was split. He is known for his ability to talk with people do the long term work to bring people together. But he also was known by Congress at the time as not particularly caring about their opinion and at times being outright offensive. The Panama Canal deal happened in large part because his people did cut deals and drew people into supporting a project that was important for the long term. He spent weeks meeting in small groups with not just congress, but with local and state officials who would provide cover for Congressional members who he needed to take a hard vote. But Carter's health care plan, which he knew was of significant importance to Ted Kennedy, was announced without telling Kennedy or consulting him in its development. Carter often offended his own party even more than the GOP because Carter opposed local initiatives as unhelpful pork projects.
Outsiders often come to the office of the President and not understanding how much of the job is acting and being presidential. Carter thought it was a waste of time and money to play "Hail to the Chief" when he entered a room and ordered it stopped. But it was quietly brought back after about a year because his team came to realize that some of the pomp was important to maintaining the office. Carter often wrote his own speeches or significantly edited the work of his speechwriters to remove all of the rhetorical flourishes. His speaking style was bare facts and that made him less interesting to listen to compared to Reagan and others who drew people in with stories and rhetoric. Again, it seems that as his presidency went on, Carter allowed his speechwriters more leeway and his speeches got better.
Part of the thesis of the book is that he was a far better president than what is commonly assumed, but that his post-presidency was less important than assumed. The Carter Center has done good work. Habitat for Humanity is the largest non-profit home builder in the world and in 2022 was the sixth largest home building in the US of any type. Alter is not trying to minimize Carter's post-presidency, but rather reframe it in relation to the presidency and the presidency is the most powerful job in the world and no other can compare.
Part of the post-presidency is that while Carter did have some success in diplomacy, he had a lot of failures and he had bad relationships with all subsequent presidents. Carter wanted to play a role, but didn't seem to understand how to relate to his successors. Routinely when he was involved in a diplomatic role, he would talk to the press before he would talk to the sitting president. And he didn't follow directions or give credit to the sitting presidents well.
Carter was both humble and quite proud. He was uninterested in personal wealth. He did not accept speaking fees, or if he did, those speaking fees were donated to the Carter Center or other non-profits. The home he lived in was worth less than $200,000 at the time of his death. When working in at Atlanta, he and Roselyn slept in a Murphy bed in his Roselyn's office not a full apartment. But he had an ego and it was often bruised.
This biography shows a flawed man who worked hard trying to prove himself to others. He was shaped by his faith, but simply having faith does not mean that you are not flawed. While Roselyn was a significant advisor during the presidency and she changed the role of the First Lady to be more policy oriented, Carter routinely made decision without consulting her, especially early in their marriage. While Carter did appoint more racial minorities and women to the judiciary than all previous presidents combined and had a diverse cabinet and senior advisors, he did not have a great record on race or gender in all areas.
Carter attempted to get his church to desegregate in the 1960s, but his attempt failed. And he maintained his membership in that segregated church until he left the presidency. Atler and others believe that much of the work of his post-presidency was animated by his lack of effort during the civil rights era. There is a tension, if Carter had been active in civil rights, he would not have become an elected official. But Carter did not seem to have taken real accountability publicly for positions and actions that he did take which were harmful to women or racial minorities. And at least some of the things he did claim to have done seem to be exaggerations.
The only type of humans there are, are flawed ones. This books does not paint Carter as a hero. But it does show him as someone that tried very hard to do what he thought was right. And there is an important role for that type of book. I did not come to this biography blind. I had previously read Carter's memoir A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety, Balmer's spiritual biography, Redeemer, and several of Carter's other books, only writing about his book on faith. I have also picked up a longer book about Carter's presidency, President Carter and Kai Bird's biography, but I do not think I will read those soon. From what I have gleaned, Alter's biography seems to be considered the best.
This was originally posted to my blog at https://bookwi.se/his-very-best/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: Part biography, part spiritual direction guidebook, part instruction in wisdom.
I have known of Evelyn Underhill for a long time, but she was one of those characters of Christian history who I have never read or read about and only had vague impressions of. One of the people I meet with for spiritual direction was talking about her and that prompted me to pickup The Spiritual Formation of Evelyn Underhill by Robyn Wrigley-Carr.
This is a recent book, it came out in 2020, but I am somewhat surprised I haven’t heard more about it. As someone who is a spiritual director, I think this would be a great book to use in a training program. It is not directly a spiritual direction training book, but the book is framed by looking at the influence of her own spiritual director, Baron Frederick von Hügel, and how they both were shaped and how that shaping impacted their work as spiritual directors. My own training was very helpful and it included a number of the old books that shaped Underhill and von Hügel, but with the exception of reading Ignatius of Loyola’s autobiography, there was very little discussion of how biography and social position impacts your work as a spiritual director.
This is not a full biography, and I would like to read a full biography of Underhill, but it contains enough biographical content to make sense of Underhill’s life. At times, spiritual formation can be overly oriented around ideas and practices and not pay attention enough to other areas. Underhill was fascinated with mysticism. Both her and von Hügel wrote books about mysticism before they met. But part of what the book points out about their spiritual direction relationship is that von Hügel was concerned that Underhill was too focused on mysticism and the intellect. His guidance drew her first to see the church as a necessary component, not because we need the church to be saved but because it grounds us in a community of people. There was a theological component to von Hügel’s guidance, as one of the more well known Catholic thinkers in England at the time, he believed in the sacramental nature of the Eucharist. Underhill was Anglican, but also came to believe that the Eucharist was an important mystical reality. Together they came up with a minimum and maximum approach to spiritual practices for Underhill. Because she was a writer as a profession and primarily worked as a spiritual director in retreat settings, she had a lot of seasons of extreme busyness. When she was busy, she had a minimum of 2 Eucharist services a week that she attended. But she also had a maximum of 4 so that she was also encouraged to have a wide variety of experiences.
Similarly, as a way to combat her orientation to individual mysticism and intellectualism, as part of his guidance, she made it a practice to visit 3 or 4 poor families a week in their homes. This was charitable work, but also community building. She wasn’t just being a patron, she was building community across class lines as another way of grounding her faith outside of mysticism and intellectualism.
There is a lot of basic wisdom for spiritual directors or anyone else about how to approach spiritual disciplines and formation.
When the tactics of fear are used in Christian communities to motivate a life of trust in God and love of neighbour, habits of maturity never have a chance to develop.
….our everyday normal lives provide the material for our spiritual formation: without activities and interests that are not directly religious, we lose the ‘material’ for ‘Grace to work in and on’ and ‘penetrate’, thus these interests should be ‘taken up’ for the ‘sake’ of religion, alternating non-religious and religious study.
Though Evelyn was always candid as a spiritual director, she was careful not to be too directive. Following Ethel Baker’s ideas concerning the ‘excessive’ powers of the director, she imitated the Baron’s reluctance to interfere, believing that the ‘object’ of spiritual direction is organizing the directee’s life so they can walk alone. Von Hügel’s maxim became her own: ‘The best thing we can do for those we love is to help them to escape from us.’
Like all good biographies of writers, The Spiritual Formation of Evelyn Underhill makes me want to read Underhill directly. She wrote about 40 books over her lifetime, most of the later books were based on the talks that she prepared for her retreats. She would prepare a series of 4 to 6 talks over a weekend and maintain that basic outline for the 5 to 8 retreats that she led each year. In addition to her talks, she made herself available for half hour spiritual direction sessions and then maintained correspondence with the retreatants after that. There are multiple books of her edited correspondence in addition to her other books.
This is not a flashy book, but it is a highly sourced book. There are multiple citations per page to ground the book in the actual writing, journals or correspondence of Underhill or von Hügel or others that influenced or were influenced Underhill. I would have like a little bit more about the role of gender and family. She was the first woman to lecture clergy in the Church of England and she did not have children. She also wrote several novels prior to her non-fiction work and I would have liked to hear some more about the role that fiction played in her theological development (if any). And I would have liked more on the development of her influence both in the world of Protestant spiritual retreats and through her writing. I know of her because she was influential, but I don’t really know how or why she became influential so that I reading about her about 80 years after her death.
(Flannery O’Connor was also significantly influenced by Baron von Hügel as was detailed in Terrible Speed of Mercy: A Spiritual Biography of Flannery O’Connor and The Life You Save May Be Your Own.)
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-spiritual-forma...
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: Part biography, part spiritual direction guidebook, part instruction in wisdom.
I have known of Evelyn Underhill for a long time, but she was one of those characters of Christian history who I have never read or read about and only had vague impressions of. One of the people I meet with for spiritual direction was talking about her and that prompted me to pickup The Spiritual Formation of Evelyn Underhill by Robyn Wrigley-Carr.
This is a recent book, it came out in 2020, but I am somewhat surprised I haven’t heard more about it. As someone who is a spiritual director, I think this would be a great book to use in a training program. It is not directly a spiritual direction training book, but the book is framed by looking at the influence of her own spiritual director, Baron Frederick von Hügel, and how they both were shaped and how that shaping impacted their work as spiritual directors. My own training was very helpful and it included a number of the old books that shaped Underhill and von Hügel, but with the exception of reading Ignatius of Loyola’s autobiography, there was very little discussion of how biography and social position impacts your work as a spiritual director.
This is not a full biography, and I would like to read a full biography of Underhill, but it contains enough biographical content to make sense of Underhill’s life. At times, spiritual formation can be overly oriented around ideas and practices and not pay attention enough to other areas. Underhill was fascinated with mysticism. Both her and von Hügel wrote books about mysticism before they met. But part of what the book points out about their spiritual direction relationship is that von Hügel was concerned that Underhill was too focused on mysticism and the intellect. His guidance drew her first to see the church as a necessary component, not because we need the church to be saved but because it grounds us in a community of people. There was a theological component to von Hügel’s guidance, as one of the more well known Catholic thinkers in England at the time, he believed in the sacramental nature of the Eucharist. Underhill was Anglican, but also came to believe that the Eucharist was an important mystical reality. Together they came up with a minimum and maximum approach to spiritual practices for Underhill. Because she was a writer as a profession and primarily worked as a spiritual director in retreat settings, she had a lot of seasons of extreme busyness. When she was busy, she had a minimum of 2 Eucharist services a week that she attended. But she also had a maximum of 4 so that she was also encouraged to have a wide variety of experiences.
Similarly, as a way to combat her orientation to individual mysticism and intellectualism, as part of his guidance, she made it a practice to visit 3 or 4 poor families a week in their homes. This was charitable work, but also community building. She wasn’t just being a patron, she was building community across class lines as another way of grounding her faith outside of mysticism and intellectualism.
There is a lot of basic wisdom for spiritual directors or anyone else about how to approach spiritual disciplines and formation.
When the tactics of fear are used in Christian communities to motivate a life of trust in God and love of neighbour, habits of maturity never have a chance to develop.
….our everyday normal lives provide the material for our spiritual formation: without activities and interests that are not directly religious, we lose the ‘material’ for ‘Grace to work in and on’ and ‘penetrate’, thus these interests should be ‘taken up’ for the ‘sake’ of religion, alternating non-religious and religious study.
Though Evelyn was always candid as a spiritual director, she was careful not to be too directive. Following Ethel Baker’s ideas concerning the ‘excessive’ powers of the director, she imitated the Baron’s reluctance to interfere, believing that the ‘object’ of spiritual direction is organizing the directee’s life so they can walk alone. Von Hügel’s maxim became her own: ‘The best thing we can do for those we love is to help them to escape from us.’
Like all good biographies of writers, The Spiritual Formation of Evelyn Underhill makes me want to read Underhill directly. She wrote about 40 books over her lifetime, most of the later books were based on the talks that she prepared for her retreats. She would prepare a series of 4 to 6 talks over a weekend and maintain that basic outline for the 5 to 8 retreats that she led each year. In addition to her talks, she made herself available for half hour spiritual direction sessions and then maintained correspondence with the retreatants after that. There are multiple books of her edited correspondence in addition to her other books.
This is not a flashy book, but it is a highly sourced book. There are multiple citations per page to ground the book in the actual writing, journals or correspondence of Underhill or von Hügel or others that influenced or were influenced Underhill. I would have like a little bit more about the role of gender and family. She was the first woman to lecture clergy in the Church of England and she did not have children. She also wrote several novels prior to her non-fiction work and I would have liked to hear some more about the role that fiction played in her theological development (if any). And I would have liked more on the development of her influence both in the world of Protestant spiritual retreats and through her writing. I know of her because she was influential, but I don’t really know how or why she became influential so that I reading about her about 80 years after her death.
(Flannery O’Connor was also significantly influenced by Baron von Hügel as was detailed in Terrible Speed of Mercy: A Spiritual Biography of Flannery O’Connor and The Life You Save May Be Your Own.)
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-spiritual-forma...
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: After the inital win against the Magicians from Nod, Wren, Simon, Jack and others go to Nod to try to bring the Magicians and the Alchemists back together.
I tried to be pretty vague about my discriptions of A Sliver of Stardust because I do not like spoiling fiction books. But it is pretty hard to discuss a series without at least some spoilers for earlier books. In A Sliver of Stardust, teenager Wren discovers that not only is stardust capable of being used to perform magic, but that she is both able to do the magic and gifted in a rare type of magic that hasn't been seen since there was a civil war among those who use the stardust. Users of stardust split into Magicians and Alchemists and the Magicians traveled to another planet (Nod).
The Magicians were led by a man that was defeated at the end of the first book and presumed dead. Wren at the start of the second book is still recovering from injuries and Jack, a spy from Nod whom she had saved is even worse. It appears that he is no longer able to do magic, but he is also now on the side of the Alchemists and wants to bring those who used and manipulated him to a type of justice.
Wren is called by the Ashes (magical beings) to come to Nod and work to fix the tainted stardust before it harms Earth. That starts the main story of A Legend of Starfire.
I know of Marissa Burt because of her work on a book about Christian Parenting that I found out about via twitter. I know her as a Christian pastor's wife who is outspoken about abuse and who is theolgoically informed and who regularly writes about church politics and theology. A Sliver of Stardust and A Legend of Starfire are young adult fantasy books without any explicit faith themes. They were published by a secular press (HarperCollins) and her bio on the books doesn't mention her faith or being a pastor's wife. But there are subtle nods to faith here and there.
Especially at the end of the book in ways that I am not going to detail, there are several quotes about magic and the world being restored in ways that I think paralells the understanding of the kingdom of God which "makes all things new." These books are not Christian fiction, but I think that Christian writers often do have faith leak out every once in a while. A couple of quotes:
“You will not win this fight. Your evil will not overcome the good just as darkness cannot overcome the light. All will be well.” (p360)
"I make all things new. You will not be my Apprentice. You will be my Child, Little Bird." (p328)
There is a longer quote that I think is that shows this even more but I am afaid it will act as too much of a spoiler, so I will not share it. But I do think that the theme of the quote, that wrong use of a thing does not invalidate the right use, is an important theme of young adult literature. Young adults need to learn for themselves that all things can be used badly. Violence can be used to protect or to terrorize. Sex can be intimate and life-giving, or it can be violent and abusive. Fire can be used to warm or create or to destroy. Part of the what Wren has to explore is whether stardust and the magic that can be done with it is something that is inherently wrong, or if there is a good there that needs to be reclaimed and used rightly.
This is not a preachy book where the message it is trying to tell overwhelms the story, but part of the depth of good writing means that there is something more than just an action plot to draw you into the story. Wren and the other characters develop and grapple with the world. It is a fantasy world, but that doesn't mean that there are not real things that young adults can relate to. Those real things include trying to find your place in diverse societies, frustration with not being able to do everything you want, courage when you do not know what to do, being drawn (in this case magically) to do what you do not want to do. I think fantasy can be particularly helpful to grapple with real things in YA literature because there can be some distance from current situations.
I feel like this series could go on, but this book was published eight years ago and the first was almost 10 years ago, so I suspect that there will not be further books. I liked these character and felt like they were whole people. I wanted the story to keep going, which is a far better place to be than being bored with the characters.
There are another two books by Burt which I will read before the end of the year.
This was originally posed on my blog at https://bookwi.se/a-legend-of-starfire/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: After the inital win against the Magicians from Nod, Wren, Simon, Jack and others go to Nod to try to bring the Magicians and the Alchemists back together.
I tried to be pretty vague about my discriptions of A Sliver of Stardust because I do not like spoiling fiction books. But it is pretty hard to discuss a series without at least some spoilers for earlier books. In A Sliver of Stardust, teenager Wren discovers that not only is stardust capable of being used to perform magic, but that she is both able to do the magic and gifted in a rare type of magic that hasn't been seen since there was a civil war among those who use the stardust. Users of stardust split into Magicians and Alchemists and the Magicians traveled to another planet (Nod).
The Magicians were led by a man that was defeated at the end of the first book and presumed dead. Wren at the start of the second book is still recovering from injuries and Jack, a spy from Nod whom she had saved is even worse. It appears that he is no longer able to do magic, but he is also now on the side of the Alchemists and wants to bring those who used and manipulated him to a type of justice.
Wren is called by the Ashes (magical beings) to come to Nod and work to fix the tainted stardust before it harms Earth. That starts the main story of A Legend of Starfire.
I know of Marissa Burt because of her work on a book about Christian Parenting that I found out about via twitter. I know her as a Christian pastor's wife who is outspoken about abuse and who is theolgoically informed and who regularly writes about church politics and theology. A Sliver of Stardust and A Legend of Starfire are young adult fantasy books without any explicit faith themes. They were published by a secular press (HarperCollins) and her bio on the books doesn't mention her faith or being a pastor's wife. But there are subtle nods to faith here and there.
Especially at the end of the book in ways that I am not going to detail, there are several quotes about magic and the world being restored in ways that I think paralells the understanding of the kingdom of God which "makes all things new." These books are not Christian fiction, but I think that Christian writers often do have faith leak out every once in a while. A couple of quotes:
“You will not win this fight. Your evil will not overcome the good just as darkness cannot overcome the light. All will be well.” (p360)
"I make all things new. You will not be my Apprentice. You will be my Child, Little Bird." (p328)
There is a longer quote that I think is that shows this even more but I am afaid it will act as too much of a spoiler, so I will not share it. But I do think that the theme of the quote, that wrong use of a thing does not invalidate the right use, is an important theme of young adult literature. Young adults need to learn for themselves that all things can be used badly. Violence can be used to protect or to terrorize. Sex can be intimate and life-giving, or it can be violent and abusive. Fire can be used to warm or create or to destroy. Part of the what Wren has to explore is whether stardust and the magic that can be done with it is something that is inherently wrong, or if there is a good there that needs to be reclaimed and used rightly.
This is not a preachy book where the message it is trying to tell overwhelms the story, but part of the depth of good writing means that there is something more than just an action plot to draw you into the story. Wren and the other characters develop and grapple with the world. It is a fantasy world, but that doesn't mean that there are not real things that young adults can relate to. Those real things include trying to find your place in diverse societies, frustration with not being able to do everything you want, courage when you do not know what to do, being drawn (in this case magically) to do what you do not want to do. I think fantasy can be particularly helpful to grapple with real things in YA literature because there can be some distance from current situations.
I feel like this series could go on, but this book was published eight years ago and the first was almost 10 years ago, so I suspect that there will not be further books. I liked these character and felt like they were whole people. I wanted the story to keep going, which is a far better place to be than being bored with the characters.
There are another two books by Burt which I will read before the end of the year.
This was originally posed on my blog at https://bookwi.se/a-legend-of-starfire/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: Wren Matthews discovers that magic is real, and that not only can she perform magic (and that not everyone can) but that her magical gifts are quite unusual.
I am a fan of good young adult or middle grade fantasy, but I do not pick up new authors randomly very often. I found Marissa Burt on twitter and after following her for several months and being aware of her work on a book about Christian parenting, I notice her comment about her earlier books. I put them on my kindle watch list and then picked up A Sliver of Stardust when it was on sale for audible. And then the kindle edition about a month later when it was also on sale.
I decided that I needed a bit of light fiction at the end of Christmas break and started to read A Sliver of Stardust. Within less than 24 hours, I had finished the book, alternating between reading on kindle and listening to the audiobook. I immediately purchased the second book in the series and a few days later starting reading it as well.
One of the complaints about middle grade and young adult fantasy is that it follows some traditional themes. The main protagonist is often a bit isolated. They often have a history of "clumsiness" or things happening which they can't quite explain. They are "chosen" and welcomed into a world of magic that those around them (often their parents) cannot see or participate in for one reason or another. There is often a mentor or teacher who instructs the in the magical arts. And there is often an evil person who wants power, or wants to use the power they have, for wrong purposes.
These themes (or tropes) are common because there is a developmental reality about the junior high/high school years where children want to be part of something bigger. They often are not involved in overt imaginative play any longer, but books can still play a role in imagining themselves in different situations that serves a similar purpose to the imaginative play of younger children. The transition from child to adult also involves doing things on their own apart from adult supervision to gain confidence in their own skills and decision making and independence. The tropes are common because they are important and part of what kids look for as their are reading.
Part of what I have appreciated with KB Hoyle's writing and the development of the publishing house that she helped to found is that they are conscious of that narrow line between playing with traditional themes and writing becoming too rote or boring. Tropes are tropes for a reason, but as a reader I do want to be surprised.
Wren Matthews is a gifted young adult. She loves science and being smart and sometimes the competition with others she enjoys. At a science competition she is distracted by a woman in strange clothes and what appears to be her falcon. But no one else seems to be able to see the woman. When Wren gets a note from the woman, she eventually discovers that magic is real, and that she (and the annoying Simon) have been invited to learn about magic.
That starts a novel that does involve many traditional middle grade fantasy themes, while still giving a new twist on many of them. The magic involves rhymes, what the rest of the world sees simply as nursery rhymes, but which in the right context and with magical stardust, allow some people to perform magic. There is good and evil and things are not necessarily what they seem.
I do not particularly try to figure out what is going on as I read. But it was pretty clear to me where the traitor was that plays an important role toward the end of the book. Because I am about 1/3 of the way into the second book as I am writing this, I know more than what is just in this first book, but without any spoilers, friendship, character, honesty and perseverance, are all part of what is required to move forward. There is struggle and separation. People are misunderstood. But that is part of life.
I really did enjoy this book. I tend toward pretty heavy fiction or non-fiction and when I get stuck or burned out, middle grade and young adult fantasy is almost always what gets me out of my rut. Marissa Burt has four books and I am sure I will read all four this year.
I originally posted this on my blog at https://bookwi.se/a-sliver-of-stardust/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: Wren Matthews discovers that magic is real, and that not only can she perform magic (and that not everyone can) but that her magical gifts are quite unusual.
I am a fan of good young adult or middle grade fantasy, but I do not pick up new authors randomly very often. I found Marissa Burt on twitter and after following her for several months and being aware of her work on a book about Christian parenting, I notice her comment about her earlier books. I put them on my kindle watch list and then picked up A Sliver of Stardust when it was on sale for audible. And then the kindle edition about a month later when it was also on sale.
I decided that I needed a bit of light fiction at the end of Christmas break and started to read A Sliver of Stardust. Within less than 24 hours, I had finished the book, alternating between reading on kindle and listening to the audiobook. I immediately purchased the second book in the series and a few days later starting reading it as well.
One of the complaints about middle grade and young adult fantasy is that it follows some traditional themes. The main protagonist is often a bit isolated. They often have a history of "clumsiness" or things happening which they can't quite explain. They are "chosen" and welcomed into a world of magic that those around them (often their parents) cannot see or participate in for one reason or another. There is often a mentor or teacher who instructs the in the magical arts. And there is often an evil person who wants power, or wants to use the power they have, for wrong purposes.
These themes (or tropes) are common because there is a developmental reality about the junior high/high school years where children want to be part of something bigger. They often are not involved in overt imaginative play any longer, but books can still play a role in imagining themselves in different situations that serves a similar purpose to the imaginative play of younger children. The transition from child to adult also involves doing things on their own apart from adult supervision to gain confidence in their own skills and decision making and independence. The tropes are common because they are important and part of what kids look for as their are reading.
Part of what I have appreciated with KB Hoyle's writing and the development of the publishing house that she helped to found is that they are conscious of that narrow line between playing with traditional themes and writing becoming too rote or boring. Tropes are tropes for a reason, but as a reader I do want to be surprised.
Wren Matthews is a gifted young adult. She loves science and being smart and sometimes the competition with others she enjoys. At a science competition she is distracted by a woman in strange clothes and what appears to be her falcon. But no one else seems to be able to see the woman. When Wren gets a note from the woman, she eventually discovers that magic is real, and that she (and the annoying Simon) have been invited to learn about magic.
That starts a novel that does involve many traditional middle grade fantasy themes, while still giving a new twist on many of them. The magic involves rhymes, what the rest of the world sees simply as nursery rhymes, but which in the right context and with magical stardust, allow some people to perform magic. There is good and evil and things are not necessarily what they seem.
I do not particularly try to figure out what is going on as I read. But it was pretty clear to me where the traitor was that plays an important role toward the end of the book. Because I am about 1/3 of the way into the second book as I am writing this, I know more than what is just in this first book, but without any spoilers, friendship, character, honesty and perseverance, are all part of what is required to move forward. There is struggle and separation. People are misunderstood. But that is part of life.
I really did enjoy this book. I tend toward pretty heavy fiction or non-fiction and when I get stuck or burned out, middle grade and young adult fantasy is almost always what gets me out of my rut. Marissa Burt has four books and I am sure I will read all four this year.
I originally posted this on my blog at https://bookwi.se/a-sliver-of-stardust/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: Introduction to Jesuit discenrment.
I picked up two audio courses by Joseph Tetlow on discenment during a recent audible sale. Tetlow is now 95 years old. He mentions in this audio course, that he was 79 when it was recorded, so this course it about 16 years old. (Audible release date is 2017, so that isn't accurate.) I read one book on discerment and spiritual direction by Tetlow in my spiritual direction training and it was Tetlow's edition of Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises that was used in our program.
One of the useful parts of this course is that Tetlow distiguishes between conscious and discernment. He thinks we should work to develop a consious and that a conscious shaped by the Holy Spirit is part of discernment. But he also thinks that without reflection on our actions and our conscious, in conversation with the Holy Spirit, we are not doing discernment. For him, all three parts are required. I think that is helpful corrective to what I have been thinking of as two seperate parts.
In my conception of discernment up until this point, I have thought about the preconscious discernment that is shaped by becoming more Christlike. And then the conscious discerment which is ore shaped by a process of reflection and practices of decision making and prayer. When I starting paying attntion to the preconscious aspects, I was reacting against the movement that thought of discenrment simply as a set of decision making tools. I didn't want to remove all aspects of decision making and seeking after God's will from discerment, but I wanted reemphasize the ascpets of character that I think are essential to good discernment. I think post-Tetlow, I am going to be more balanced and I think his three parts is one good method of discussing that balance.
This audio course is attempting to introduce Jesuit thinking on discenrment but I am not sure it really was a good introduction. There were lots of examples and stories, but few practical tools. Most of the tools were introduced in the final session. The prayer of examen was not clearly introduced and Ignatius' Rules of Discernment were mentioned but not clearly taught. I think this was not a bad introduction, but it did not live up to the title. It was about discenrment, but the Jesuit part was largely in the background.
As much as there was value here, I think there was signficant weakness. The weaknesses were in three areas. First, in trying to avoid some of the more technical aspects (Rules of Discenrment, Examen, etc) that may put off some lay people, I think he didn't do enough to equip people for discenmernment. Second, I think that Tetlow's approach is spiritual and pastoral, which is important, but it did not have enough attention to cultural influences. That isn't to say there was no discussion. At one point he discusses growing up in a racist society and using the N word (he says it) without reflection because it was part of culture.
Part of the problem with his cultural approach is that I think he needed to be more clear about how we engage culture to understand how culture influences our view of what choices are viable. Charles Taylor and others decribe this as the Social Imaginary. Our social imaginary influences what we think are choices that can be made. There is always a limit by culture and we cannot fully remove ourselves from all cultural influences.
In another place, he talks favorably about how Bernard of Clarvoux discerned about whether he should preach to encourage people to support the third crusade. The main tools of discernment that Tetlow cited was the number of people who joined to support the crusade and the political support of the crusade. What he did not present as part of the evaluation is the antisemitism that was riled up by Bernard's sermons encouraging the crusades or the problems and abuses of the crusades.
In part this is related to Tetlow making a very Catholic presentation. As someone trained in a catholic spiritual direction program, I became comfortable translating in my head some thing that seemed wrong theologically but was more about langauge than about content. But there are other areas where there are differences.
One of those differences is the realtionship of the state to faith. In the last section, Tetlow raises a lot of concerns about the secularization of culture and how that influences our choices and discenrment. I think he is right to raise that question, but I was very uncomfortable with his answer. This must have been recorded around 2008-9 and he was concerned more about the new Athiests and the anti-religious bias of culture than he was reforming how Christians interact with the state. He proceeds to call for making culture Christian again in a way that today sounds very Christian Nationalist. Three seperate times he quote Thomas Jefferson (and he only cites Thomas Jefferson on this point) saying that the american experiment is rooted in Christianity. Jefferson wasn't a Christian by any orthodox standard. And if we want to consider Jefferson part of the Christian heritage, then that definition of Christian is so broad as to make me wonder about what it really means.
He conflates American and Christian in an unhelpful way. There are other places where he talks about obesity and laziness and what I would call trauma in ways that I also think are problematic because he seems to reject trauma as a category and equaites productivity and thinness with holiness in a way that I don't think he really believes.
This is a good example of yet another book on discenrment that I find somewhat helpful, but I am also concenred bout how the evidence of discenrment seems to be lacking in how it is lived out in practice. The steps here are largely helpful. The illustrations are mostly helpful. The final advice section I think is pretty much awful.
I originally posted this on my blog at https://bookwi.se/discerning-gods-will/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: Introduction to Jesuit discenrment.
I picked up two audio courses by Joseph Tetlow on discenment during a recent audible sale. Tetlow is now 95 years old. He mentions in this audio course, that he was 79 when it was recorded, so this course it about 16 years old. (Audible release date is 2017, so that isn't accurate.) I read one book on discerment and spiritual direction by Tetlow in my spiritual direction training and it was Tetlow's edition of Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises that was used in our program.
One of the useful parts of this course is that Tetlow distiguishes between conscious and discernment. He thinks we should work to develop a consious and that a conscious shaped by the Holy Spirit is part of discernment. But he also thinks that without reflection on our actions and our conscious, in conversation with the Holy Spirit, we are not doing discernment. For him, all three parts are required. I think that is helpful corrective to what I have been thinking of as two seperate parts.
In my conception of discernment up until this point, I have thought about the preconscious discernment that is shaped by becoming more Christlike. And then the conscious discerment which is ore shaped by a process of reflection and practices of decision making and prayer. When I starting paying attntion to the preconscious aspects, I was reacting against the movement that thought of discenrment simply as a set of decision making tools. I didn't want to remove all aspects of decision making and seeking after God's will from discerment, but I wanted reemphasize the ascpets of character that I think are essential to good discernment. I think post-Tetlow, I am going to be more balanced and I think his three parts is one good method of discussing that balance.
This audio course is attempting to introduce Jesuit thinking on discenrment but I am not sure it really was a good introduction. There were lots of examples and stories, but few practical tools. Most of the tools were introduced in the final session. The prayer of examen was not clearly introduced and Ignatius' Rules of Discernment were mentioned but not clearly taught. I think this was not a bad introduction, but it did not live up to the title. It was about discenrment, but the Jesuit part was largely in the background.
As much as there was value here, I think there was signficant weakness. The weaknesses were in three areas. First, in trying to avoid some of the more technical aspects (Rules of Discenrment, Examen, etc) that may put off some lay people, I think he didn't do enough to equip people for discenmernment. Second, I think that Tetlow's approach is spiritual and pastoral, which is important, but it did not have enough attention to cultural influences. That isn't to say there was no discussion. At one point he discusses growing up in a racist society and using the N word (he says it) without reflection because it was part of culture.
Part of the problem with his cultural approach is that I think he needed to be more clear about how we engage culture to understand how culture influences our view of what choices are viable. Charles Taylor and others decribe this as the Social Imaginary. Our social imaginary influences what we think are choices that can be made. There is always a limit by culture and we cannot fully remove ourselves from all cultural influences.
In another place, he talks favorably about how Bernard of Clarvoux discerned about whether he should preach to encourage people to support the third crusade. The main tools of discernment that Tetlow cited was the number of people who joined to support the crusade and the political support of the crusade. What he did not present as part of the evaluation is the antisemitism that was riled up by Bernard's sermons encouraging the crusades or the problems and abuses of the crusades.
In part this is related to Tetlow making a very Catholic presentation. As someone trained in a catholic spiritual direction program, I became comfortable translating in my head some thing that seemed wrong theologically but was more about langauge than about content. But there are other areas where there are differences.
One of those differences is the realtionship of the state to faith. In the last section, Tetlow raises a lot of concerns about the secularization of culture and how that influences our choices and discenrment. I think he is right to raise that question, but I was very uncomfortable with his answer. This must have been recorded around 2008-9 and he was concerned more about the new Athiests and the anti-religious bias of culture than he was reforming how Christians interact with the state. He proceeds to call for making culture Christian again in a way that today sounds very Christian Nationalist. Three seperate times he quote Thomas Jefferson (and he only cites Thomas Jefferson on this point) saying that the american experiment is rooted in Christianity. Jefferson wasn't a Christian by any orthodox standard. And if we want to consider Jefferson part of the Christian heritage, then that definition of Christian is so broad as to make me wonder about what it really means.
He conflates American and Christian in an unhelpful way. There are other places where he talks about obesity and laziness and what I would call trauma in ways that I also think are problematic because he seems to reject trauma as a category and equaites productivity and thinness with holiness in a way that I don't think he really believes.
This is a good example of yet another book on discenrment that I find somewhat helpful, but I am also concenred bout how the evidence of discenrment seems to be lacking in how it is lived out in practice. The steps here are largely helpful. The illustrations are mostly helpful. The final advice section I think is pretty much awful.
I originally posted this on my blog at https://bookwi.se/discerning-gods-will/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A look at Roman religious practices and the how the early church was different from the religious practices of their surrounding culture.
It took me a decade or so, but eventually I came to see that the work of NT Wright and others were bringing attention to the Roman and Jewish cultural practices of the several centuries around Jesus. The good of that work continues in many others like Nijay Gupta’s recent books. Strange Religion and Tell Her Story are interrelated. Tell Her Story is an investigation into the role of women in the early church. The main insights was Gupta’s investigation into the role of women in broader Roman society. Women were marginalized in Roman society, but wealth and class meant that women could still participate in the patronage system even if there were only some women who had the privileges of wealth and class that allowed them that role.
Strange Religion is using similar tools and methods to explore Roman religious practices and with that base understanding explore how early Christian practices were similar or different from the culture of the time. Strange Religion is very readable, but some background knowledge in anthropology, culture, concept of honor/shame versus guilt/innocence will help you get the most out of the book. If you have read Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes or Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, I think you will get more out of Strange Religion. That isn’t required pre-reading, but at least for me, getting my head wrapped around how the early church was significantly different in its thinking needed multiple angles and multiple books and I am sure I do not have it all.
I think the negative of this type of project is that it can make those who are new to the investigation of the early church mistrust their own ability to read scripture. That isn’t the point, but there is some value in giving us humility as we approach scripture and our faith. Christianity is complex. The early church culture was significantly different from our own. The various cultures presented throughout scripture were significantly different from each other, not just from then to now. It is not that reading scripture is impossible, but there are many ways to misread it.
I am not going to summarize the whole book but instead just offer a few take aways and commend the book. Strange Religion is really offering two types of strange. Early Christianity is strange to our eyes because it was in a completely different culture and used an entirely different social imaginary. But early Christianity was also strange to the culture it was in. Roman culture was “religious” in the sense that everyone participated. Almost all meat had been used in some sort of sacrifice or offering. Everyone wanted to appease the gods because it was the gods who controlled weather and luck and all of the things that were outside of the normal human areas of control.
What made Judaism and then Christianity different was their resistance to participate in those communal practices that would bring good to the community. This is not completely different from some versions of Christian nationalism or early Puritanism which believes in a covenant with God by a culture or state. In order to fulfill that covenant, everyone needs to participate in the religious practices that appease the god(s). Judaism did not believe in “the gods” but A God. To appease “the gods” was to deny the supremacy of their god. That was dangerous and different enough. But Christianity added to this by crossing ethnic and cultural boundaries.
Strange Religion fits well with NT Wright’s recent book on Acts. Wright suggests that part of what Paul was doing in going to the local synagogues before reaching out the local gentiles was to identify with Judaism’s exemption from communal sacrifices. The Roman government had allowed Jews to opt out of communal sacrifices as long as Jews would pray for Roman and community good. But Jews were physically marked with circumcision in addition to being primarily an ethnic group. Paul wanted to use that Jewish exemption but also wanted gentile Christians to not get physically marked in circumcision. That appeared to be dangerous both to Jews who wanted to maintain their exemption and to Romans who wanted to be able to identify who Jews were.
Gupta explores this and many other areas of Roman culture, especially religious culture so that we as readers can understand the two threads of strangeness. Private cults were common in the Roman era and Christianity was at times thought of as just being one of the many cults of the era. They maintained secrecy, they called one another brother and sister and to outsiders it appeared that they participated in incest and talked about eating flesh and drinking blood of their god. This is a strangeness that many others in the past have talked about. But Gupta adds to this basic idea of strangeness, why Rome allowed, but monitored cults. Rome was interested in communal stability. And Christianity with its boundary crossing encouraged its members to flout traditional communal roles. Women and slaves were giving places of leadership and authority.
There has been recent push to monoculture or mono-ethnic communities within a portion of Christianity recently. Danny Slavich, a pastor of a multiethnic SBC church, tweeted:
The kingdom of God is multiethnic.
The Church is multiethnic.
If you don't like multiethnicity, take it up with the Lord.
Because I have paid attention to his work, I know that he has received a lot of critique for his emphasis on multiethnicity as an important function of the church. When I am writing this, the tweet has over 100K views and about 1500 retweets, comments or likes. Many are supportive because they are aware of the context he is speaking into. But he also drew a number of overt white supremacists. There were three main types of negative responses: 1) those who said that the church was universal in its multiethnicity, but local churches should be segregated. 2) those who asserted that Christianity was white and/or European and others could only be Christian to the extent that they adopted white or European cultural norms. (One said that in heaven all people would become white because dark skin was a result of sin.) 3) Nation states should be monocultural or mono-ethnic and the churches within those nation states would then naturally be mono-ethnic and monocultural. Many of these people cited the Tower of Babel as God’s command to not allow ethnic or cultural mixing.
I don’t want to suggest that this type of thinking is widespread in the church, but it is present. And people who do think in this way are going to be resistant to a reading of scripture, especially Acts and Paul’s letters, which significantly pays attention to the importance of crossing boundaries of all sorts in the early church. (Amos Yong’s commentary on Acts is helpful if you want to understand how important boundary crossing was to reading Acts.) Skye Jehani interviewed NT Wright about his commentary on Acts and in the last 15 minutes cited the kinds of segregationist tendencies that Skye knew are a part of the church. (Go to 1:05 of this video to see the 10-12 minutes of discussion about this.) Books like The Myth of Colorblind Christians and The Bible Told Them So are histories that grapple with the role of the Homogenous Unit Principle played in the church growth movement and how that HUP worked to maintain segregation within churches when other institutions were moving away from segregation.
The importance of Strange Religion and NT Wright’s commentary on Acts is that we need to understand scripture and scriptural culture to understand how modern movements may be deviating from Christianity. It is harder to read scripture when you understand the obligation to pay attention to how different scripture is from our current context. But it is part of Christian maturity to see that scripture is for you but not necessarily written directly to you. And some people are resistant to doing that work to grow in Christian maturity.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/strange-religion/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A look at Roman religious practices and the how the early church was different from the religious practices of their surrounding culture.
It took me a decade or so, but eventually I came to see that the work of NT Wright and others were bringing attention to the Roman and Jewish cultural practices of the several centuries around Jesus. The good of that work continues in many others like Nijay Gupta’s recent books. Strange Religion and Tell Her Story are interrelated. Tell Her Story is an investigation into the role of women in the early church. The main insights was Gupta’s investigation into the role of women in broader Roman society. Women were marginalized in Roman society, but wealth and class meant that women could still participate in the patronage system even if there were only some women who had the privileges of wealth and class that allowed them that role.
Strange Religion is using similar tools and methods to explore Roman religious practices and with that base understanding explore how early Christian practices were similar or different from the culture of the time. Strange Religion is very readable, but some background knowledge in anthropology, culture, concept of honor/shame versus guilt/innocence will help you get the most out of the book. If you have read Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes or Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, I think you will get more out of Strange Religion. That isn’t required pre-reading, but at least for me, getting my head wrapped around how the early church was significantly different in its thinking needed multiple angles and multiple books and I am sure I do not have it all.
I think the negative of this type of project is that it can make those who are new to the investigation of the early church mistrust their own ability to read scripture. That isn’t the point, but there is some value in giving us humility as we approach scripture and our faith. Christianity is complex. The early church culture was significantly different from our own. The various cultures presented throughout scripture were significantly different from each other, not just from then to now. It is not that reading scripture is impossible, but there are many ways to misread it.
I am not going to summarize the whole book but instead just offer a few take aways and commend the book. Strange Religion is really offering two types of strange. Early Christianity is strange to our eyes because it was in a completely different culture and used an entirely different social imaginary. But early Christianity was also strange to the culture it was in. Roman culture was “religious” in the sense that everyone participated. Almost all meat had been used in some sort of sacrifice or offering. Everyone wanted to appease the gods because it was the gods who controlled weather and luck and all of the things that were outside of the normal human areas of control.
What made Judaism and then Christianity different was their resistance to participate in those communal practices that would bring good to the community. This is not completely different from some versions of Christian nationalism or early Puritanism which believes in a covenant with God by a culture or state. In order to fulfill that covenant, everyone needs to participate in the religious practices that appease the god(s). Judaism did not believe in “the gods” but A God. To appease “the gods” was to deny the supremacy of their god. That was dangerous and different enough. But Christianity added to this by crossing ethnic and cultural boundaries.
Strange Religion fits well with NT Wright’s recent book on Acts. Wright suggests that part of what Paul was doing in going to the local synagogues before reaching out the local gentiles was to identify with Judaism’s exemption from communal sacrifices. The Roman government had allowed Jews to opt out of communal sacrifices as long as Jews would pray for Roman and community good. But Jews were physically marked with circumcision in addition to being primarily an ethnic group. Paul wanted to use that Jewish exemption but also wanted gentile Christians to not get physically marked in circumcision. That appeared to be dangerous both to Jews who wanted to maintain their exemption and to Romans who wanted to be able to identify who Jews were.
Gupta explores this and many other areas of Roman culture, especially religious culture so that we as readers can understand the two threads of strangeness. Private cults were common in the Roman era and Christianity was at times thought of as just being one of the many cults of the era. They maintained secrecy, they called one another brother and sister and to outsiders it appeared that they participated in incest and talked about eating flesh and drinking blood of their god. This is a strangeness that many others in the past have talked about. But Gupta adds to this basic idea of strangeness, why Rome allowed, but monitored cults. Rome was interested in communal stability. And Christianity with its boundary crossing encouraged its members to flout traditional communal roles. Women and slaves were giving places of leadership and authority.
There has been recent push to monoculture or mono-ethnic communities within a portion of Christianity recently. Danny Slavich, a pastor of a multiethnic SBC church, tweeted:
The kingdom of God is multiethnic.
The Church is multiethnic.
If you don't like multiethnicity, take it up with the Lord.
Because I have paid attention to his work, I know that he has received a lot of critique for his emphasis on multiethnicity as an important function of the church. When I am writing this, the tweet has over 100K views and about 1500 retweets, comments or likes. Many are supportive because they are aware of the context he is speaking into. But he also drew a number of overt white supremacists. There were three main types of negative responses: 1) those who said that the church was universal in its multiethnicity, but local churches should be segregated. 2) those who asserted that Christianity was white and/or European and others could only be Christian to the extent that they adopted white or European cultural norms. (One said that in heaven all people would become white because dark skin was a result of sin.) 3) Nation states should be monocultural or mono-ethnic and the churches within those nation states would then naturally be mono-ethnic and monocultural. Many of these people cited the Tower of Babel as God’s command to not allow ethnic or cultural mixing.
I don’t want to suggest that this type of thinking is widespread in the church, but it is present. And people who do think in this way are going to be resistant to a reading of scripture, especially Acts and Paul’s letters, which significantly pays attention to the importance of crossing boundaries of all sorts in the early church. (Amos Yong’s commentary on Acts is helpful if you want to understand how important boundary crossing was to reading Acts.) Skye Jehani interviewed NT Wright about his commentary on Acts and in the last 15 minutes cited the kinds of segregationist tendencies that Skye knew are a part of the church. (Go to 1:05 of this video to see the 10-12 minutes of discussion about this.) Books like The Myth of Colorblind Christians and The Bible Told Them So are histories that grapple with the role of the Homogenous Unit Principle played in the church growth movement and how that HUP worked to maintain segregation within churches when other institutions were moving away from segregation.
The importance of Strange Religion and NT Wright’s commentary on Acts is that we need to understand scripture and scriptural culture to understand how modern movements may be deviating from Christianity. It is harder to read scripture when you understand the obligation to pay attention to how different scripture is from our current context. But it is part of Christian maturity to see that scripture is for you but not necessarily written directly to you. And some people are resistant to doing that work to grow in Christian maturity.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/strange-religion/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A dated, but at times quite helpful book on the movement toward modernism.
I decided to read The Technological Society because of my reading project on Christian Discernment. One of the reasons why there is some resistance to discernment is that some view discernment as a type of spiritual knowledge, not unlike magic, where you seek to negotiate with God or invoke God in your own plans in an inappropriate way. I want to say that yes, I agree that there is a type of discernment that reduces it to magic or an incantation. Ellul, in his exploration of where the idea of technique developed, specifically suggests premodern people's use of magic was a type of technique. But Ellul, earlier in the book, suggests that the modern idea of technique was developed in parallel to the development of machines. So, while Ellul thought that magic was a type of technique, it was intentionally hidden knowledge so that others would not see the technique in action. With the rise of the machine, the technique was visible and public in a way that magic was not.
The Technological Society was initially published in French 70 years ago this year. It is both eerily prescient and quite dated. When he speaks about early electronic calculators, computer punch cards, or communism, you can see the age of the book. There are many areas where you can see how his comments apply to issues that arose after the book was released. Self Help books and how that technique is applied to the individual is part of his discussion, but I think if he were writing today, it would be an even larger part of the book.
Hannah Anderson has a piece in Christianity Today about self-help and the problems of applying it as an individual. One of the points that she is pointing out is that the problem is not the intention of self-improvement but the method of self-improvement that has moved from opportunity to obligation. Self-improvement as a technique in Ellul's sense means that we have an obligation to adopt universal ideas and methods, whether they work for us or not, and whether they are a denial of our created limitations or not. Christians are just as susceptible to this denial of limitation when we emphasize how much we can do for God and how extreme we can take our obedience or commitment. Seth Hahne has a thread on twitter about people speeding up audiobooks to consume more instead of enjoying the art of the narration at the intended speed. Which I think is exactly this type of technique for self improvement that is a denial of our humanity and limitation. The discussion that prompted the thread was about pushing listening to the limit of comprehension as a means of consuming to the edge our intelligibility.
The rise of AI is exactly the type of technique that Ellul was asking us to be wary of. Esau McCaulley had a recent podcast where they discussed religion stories of 2024 and they spent a lot of time on AI in the church. It is pretty easy to dismissed AI bots that are designed to be Jesus or a priest who you can confess to. But asking AI to write a sermon isn’t really much different from buying or stealing a sermon from another pastor. The problem is is not using other people’s ideas, but presenting them as it they were your own. Wesley and other pastors have written sample sermons for untrained pastors to use. But the point was for them to learn how to preach on their own. Trish Warren (on McCaulley’s podcast) was making the point that the role of the pastor is to pastor a local body of Christians. The pastor isn’t preaching to all people at all times some vague Christian platitude, but to preach to this particular group of people, whom she or he would know intimately enough that they can speak to the congregation God’s words that are borne to them through prayer and intimacy with the congregation. In Ellul’s conception of technique, a pastor cannot skip forward to intimacy with God and the congregation by using AI because technique intentionally skips the hard work of building intimacy.
Similarly, when students write papers the point isn’t to produce the paper, it is to learn how to produce a paper and how to think about and research a topic. Students may think they are accomplishing the task when they produce an AI generated paper, but they have used technique to avoid the main goal. For discernment, the main reason I was reading, there are two important threads. First, the goal of discernment isn’t decision-making to get to the right end, the goal is to become Christlike. Second, the methods we use to get to Christlikeness can’t skip the hard steps. We have to actually struggle against sin and do hard things and search within ourselves to know our motivation and desires as we attempt to discern God’s path for us. The purpose of a spiritual director or mentors isn’t to make decisions for us or to discern in our place, but to talk through problems and issues so that we can build our own capacity for discernment and Christlikeness. The goal of all of these things is maturity.
I did not finish The Technological Society, I read about 70 percent of it and skipped around the end a bit. The introduction and the first two chapters defining technique and giving historical context to the development of technique was the main sections that I was looking for when I picked up the book. The later chapters on technique and the economy and technique and the state had a lot of focus on capitalism and communism and the modern state and those had some value, but they were so focused on the issues of the 1960s that I could have skipped those without much harm.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-technological-society/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A dated, but at times quite helpful book on the movement toward modernism.
I decided to read The Technological Society because of my reading project on Christian Discernment. One of the reasons why there is some resistance to discernment is that some view discernment as a type of spiritual knowledge, not unlike magic, where you seek to negotiate with God or invoke God in your own plans in an inappropriate way. I want to say that yes, I agree that there is a type of discernment that reduces it to magic or an incantation. Ellul, in his exploration of where the idea of technique developed, specifically suggests premodern people's use of magic was a type of technique. But Ellul, earlier in the book, suggests that the modern idea of technique was developed in parallel to the development of machines. So, while Ellul thought that magic was a type of technique, it was intentionally hidden knowledge so that others would not see the technique in action. With the rise of the machine, the technique was visible and public in a way that magic was not.
The Technological Society was initially published in French 70 years ago this year. It is both eerily prescient and quite dated. When he speaks about early electronic calculators, computer punch cards, or communism, you can see the age of the book. There are many areas where you can see how his comments apply to issues that arose after the book was released. Self Help books and how that technique is applied to the individual is part of his discussion, but I think if he were writing today, it would be an even larger part of the book.
Hannah Anderson has a piece in Christianity Today about self-help and the problems of applying it as an individual. One of the points that she is pointing out is that the problem is not the intention of self-improvement but the method of self-improvement that has moved from opportunity to obligation. Self-improvement as a technique in Ellul's sense means that we have an obligation to adopt universal ideas and methods, whether they work for us or not, and whether they are a denial of our created limitations or not. Christians are just as susceptible to this denial of limitation when we emphasize how much we can do for God and how extreme we can take our obedience or commitment. Seth Hahne has a thread on twitter about people speeding up audiobooks to consume more instead of enjoying the art of the narration at the intended speed. Which I think is exactly this type of technique for self improvement that is a denial of our humanity and limitation. The discussion that prompted the thread was about pushing listening to the limit of comprehension as a means of consuming to the edge our intelligibility.
The rise of AI is exactly the type of technique that Ellul was asking us to be wary of. Esau McCaulley had a recent podcast where they discussed religion stories of 2024 and they spent a lot of time on AI in the church. It is pretty easy to dismissed AI bots that are designed to be Jesus or a priest who you can confess to. But asking AI to write a sermon isn’t really much different from buying or stealing a sermon from another pastor. The problem is is not using other people’s ideas, but presenting them as it they were your own. Wesley and other pastors have written sample sermons for untrained pastors to use. But the point was for them to learn how to preach on their own. Trish Warren (on McCaulley’s podcast) was making the point that the role of the pastor is to pastor a local body of Christians. The pastor isn’t preaching to all people at all times some vague Christian platitude, but to preach to this particular group of people, whom she or he would know intimately enough that they can speak to the congregation God’s words that are borne to them through prayer and intimacy with the congregation. In Ellul’s conception of technique, a pastor cannot skip forward to intimacy with God and the congregation by using AI because technique intentionally skips the hard work of building intimacy.
Similarly, when students write papers the point isn’t to produce the paper, it is to learn how to produce a paper and how to think about and research a topic. Students may think they are accomplishing the task when they produce an AI generated paper, but they have used technique to avoid the main goal. For discernment, the main reason I was reading, there are two important threads. First, the goal of discernment isn’t decision-making to get to the right end, the goal is to become Christlike. Second, the methods we use to get to Christlikeness can’t skip the hard steps. We have to actually struggle against sin and do hard things and search within ourselves to know our motivation and desires as we attempt to discern God’s path for us. The purpose of a spiritual director or mentors isn’t to make decisions for us or to discern in our place, but to talk through problems and issues so that we can build our own capacity for discernment and Christlikeness. The goal of all of these things is maturity.
I did not finish The Technological Society, I read about 70 percent of it and skipped around the end a bit. The introduction and the first two chapters defining technique and giving historical context to the development of technique was the main sections that I was looking for when I picked up the book. The later chapters on technique and the economy and technique and the state had a lot of focus on capitalism and communism and the modern state and those had some value, but they were so focused on the issues of the 1960s that I could have skipped those without much harm.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-technological-society/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Thin Blue Smoke
Second Reading:
Summary: A meandering novel set in Kansas City with BBQ as a central setting.
In 2012 my favorite novel was Thin Blue Smoke. I ran across Doug Worgul on Bluesky and decided I needed to revisit the novel. I very much remembered the three main characters, LaVerne Williams, AB Clayton, and Ferguson Glen. There are a host of other supporting characters and part of the joy of the novel is getting to go back in time to give context to why those characters are who they are. I have previously written about Thin Blue Smoke in a way that was pretty vague and without spoilers. But I am going to give away more of the story this time. If you don't want spoilers, read this version. If you are okay with spoilers, then you can keep reading.
LaVerne Williams is a Texas-born former baseball player. After a serious sholder injury in 1967, he is let go by the Kansas City Athletics. He is young, married with an infant and without a job or any prospects. The novel is set in the 1990s and by this time LaVerne has become established with a small BBQ resturant with a number of regulars, but little recognition.
AB Clayton wandered lost into the restaurant, commonly known as Smoke Meat, when he was 15. LaVerne offered him a job on the spot and by the main timeline of the book he has been working at Smoke Meat for about 20 years and his whole life is wrapped up in the work and the people of the resturant.
Father Freguson Glen is a theology professor and Episcopal priest. In the 1960s he wrote a pulitzer prize nominated novel but nothing else of note since. He is an alcoholic and lost in many ways, but he has come to find the people of Smoke Meat are a type of family.
The other characters, including Angela, LaVerne's wife, are largely supporting characters. It isn't that they are not important to the story, but they have less developed back stories or they are the "villans" of the story. Thin Blue Smoke moves back and forth through time to help us understand how the characters came to be who they are. This is not an "excuse" for their actions, but context for understanding them.
The characters are given choices throughout the book. AB Clayton grew up with an abusive, addicted, and neglegant mother. He is naive to the way the world works outside of his experience, but he still has hope. Father Glen knows all the ways of the world. He has been given everything, wealth, access, knowledge, but he is lacking some of what AB takes for granted.
This is a novel that is more about the character and the ideas than the plot. I love that type of novel, but not everyone does. There is a climax and conclusion, but because this is a book that is in large part about the problem of evil and choice, the book is more about the journey than the conclusion.
I know that my attraction to Ferguson Glen is connected to my identification with him and his background and thinking, but he is the character that I most identify with. He knows his theology and practices. Throughout the book he often comments on theological ideas and practical pastoral care and does so with great skill. But his desire throughout the book is to see God. I am reading Fleming Rutledge’s book on Epiphany (she is a retired Episcopal priest just like Father Glen is) and she is talking about epiphany as focusing on God’s glory and Christ’s manifestations as an incarnate being.
When I read that, I thought immediately of Father’s Glen’s desire for God. In the book Father Glen is attracted to the Black church and a more Pentecostal expression of faith, but that isn’t the type of faith he has grown up with. Part of the solution in the book is to find real love so that he can understand what pure love is and know that God’s love for him is greater than that. But I also think that Fleming Rutledge if she were his spiritual director might point him toward understanding that God’s glory isn’t about an expressive emotional response, but about an awareness of the greatness of God. Glen has no issues theologically with God or with his history of radical social action in the civil rights movement. His issue is that those things are all theoretical not personal. His father and mother were distant. His brief marriage was annulled. He takes responsibility for his parts in those relationships, but we are shaped by those around us. And when the love around us is always conditional, and the church we attend demonstrates a conditional love, it is natural that we understand all love as conditional.
LaVerne and AB both had difficult childhoods. LaVerne's mother was addicted to drugs and absent and he was raised by his grandmother and her brother. For all of the challenges in his life, his family, especially his great uncle, were there for him to give him a second (or third) chance. Part of the reality of the book is that while not everyone makes good choices in the face of difficult situations, some people have more support in those situations than others. Angela and LaVerne's son passes away at 19 and AB becomes a surrogate son to them. AB's own mother is largely absent. Everyone needs help to mature. AB is naturally kind and good, but being kind and good does not mean the world is kind and good back. Without Angela and LaVerne, AB would likely end up like another side character who didn't have a support system.
LaVerne himself goes through a number of things trying to find his way in the world, but his uncle kept being there for him. Angela was also there for him, but part of what she came to understand was that she could not save him on her own. LaVerne had to take responsibility for himself even as she could continue to love and support him as part of drawing him toward a more healthy path.
Glen grapples with the concept of God's blessing throughout the book. Theologically he is resistant to claiming God's blessing because of what that can mean for those who do not have what we consider God's blessing. If you have good weather and claim it as God's blessing then what does that mean when you do not have good weather? He shifts somewhat throughout the book because he comes to see that seeing God at work is part of seeking after hope. This is not a book of simple theological answers. This is a book of grappling, the type of grappling that we all need to do throughout life.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/thin-blue-smoke-by-doug-worgul-2/
______
Short review: Some stories are written to be savored. This meandering story is loosely connected to a BBQ joint in Kansas City. But that is just the setting. It is about the way that people come into one another's lives and make an impact. Both for good an ill. LaVerne is the owner of the BBQ place and a former pro baseball player. AB is his assistant and the best friend of Raymond, LaVerne's son that has passed away. Glen is an alcoholic Episcopal Priest and professor and the wise man that cannot take his own advice (think Brennan Manning). There are many other characters and the story jumps through time and from character to character giving the reader background to all of their stories of life, of redemption.
While clearly a Christian novel, this is the type of Christian novel that does not often get written. It has real people, not two dimensional cutouts. They have real struggles with sin and understanding life. They do not all believe the 'right' thing. I hope to see more by this author.
A much longer review and some quotes from that book are at my blog at http://bookwi.se/thin-blue-smoke-by-d...
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Second Reading:
Summary: A meandering novel set in Kansas City with BBQ as a central setting.
In 2012 my favorite novel was Thin Blue Smoke. I ran across Doug Worgul on Bluesky and decided I needed to revisit the novel. I very much remembered the three main characters, LaVerne Williams, AB Clayton, and Ferguson Glen. There are a host of other supporting characters and part of the joy of the novel is getting to go back in time to give context to why those characters are who they are. I have previously written about Thin Blue Smoke in a way that was pretty vague and without spoilers. But I am going to give away more of the story this time. If you don't want spoilers, read this version. If you are okay with spoilers, then you can keep reading.
LaVerne Williams is a Texas-born former baseball player. After a serious sholder injury in 1967, he is let go by the Kansas City Athletics. He is young, married with an infant and without a job or any prospects. The novel is set in the 1990s and by this time LaVerne has become established with a small BBQ resturant with a number of regulars, but little recognition.
AB Clayton wandered lost into the restaurant, commonly known as Smoke Meat, when he was 15. LaVerne offered him a job on the spot and by the main timeline of the book he has been working at Smoke Meat for about 20 years and his whole life is wrapped up in the work and the people of the resturant.
Father Freguson Glen is a theology professor and Episcopal priest. In the 1960s he wrote a pulitzer prize nominated novel but nothing else of note since. He is an alcoholic and lost in many ways, but he has come to find the people of Smoke Meat are a type of family.
The other characters, including Angela, LaVerne's wife, are largely supporting characters. It isn't that they are not important to the story, but they have less developed back stories or they are the "villans" of the story. Thin Blue Smoke moves back and forth through time to help us understand how the characters came to be who they are. This is not an "excuse" for their actions, but context for understanding them.
The characters are given choices throughout the book. AB Clayton grew up with an abusive, addicted, and neglegant mother. He is naive to the way the world works outside of his experience, but he still has hope. Father Glen knows all the ways of the world. He has been given everything, wealth, access, knowledge, but he is lacking some of what AB takes for granted.
This is a novel that is more about the character and the ideas than the plot. I love that type of novel, but not everyone does. There is a climax and conclusion, but because this is a book that is in large part about the problem of evil and choice, the book is more about the journey than the conclusion.
I know that my attraction to Ferguson Glen is connected to my identification with him and his background and thinking, but he is the character that I most identify with. He knows his theology and practices. Throughout the book he often comments on theological ideas and practical pastoral care and does so with great skill. But his desire throughout the book is to see God. I am reading Fleming Rutledge’s book on Epiphany (she is a retired Episcopal priest just like Father Glen is) and she is talking about epiphany as focusing on God’s glory and Christ’s manifestations as an incarnate being.
When I read that, I thought immediately of Father’s Glen’s desire for God. In the book Father Glen is attracted to the Black church and a more Pentecostal expression of faith, but that isn’t the type of faith he has grown up with. Part of the solution in the book is to find real love so that he can understand what pure love is and know that God’s love for him is greater than that. But I also think that Fleming Rutledge if she were his spiritual director might point him toward understanding that God’s glory isn’t about an expressive emotional response, but about an awareness of the greatness of God. Glen has no issues theologically with God or with his history of radical social action in the civil rights movement. His issue is that those things are all theoretical not personal. His father and mother were distant. His brief marriage was annulled. He takes responsibility for his parts in those relationships, but we are shaped by those around us. And when the love around us is always conditional, and the church we attend demonstrates a conditional love, it is natural that we understand all love as conditional.
LaVerne and AB both had difficult childhoods. LaVerne's mother was addicted to drugs and absent and he was raised by his grandmother and her brother. For all of the challenges in his life, his family, especially his great uncle, were there for him to give him a second (or third) chance. Part of the reality of the book is that while not everyone makes good choices in the face of difficult situations, some people have more support in those situations than others. Angela and LaVerne's son passes away at 19 and AB becomes a surrogate son to them. AB's own mother is largely absent. Everyone needs help to mature. AB is naturally kind and good, but being kind and good does not mean the world is kind and good back. Without Angela and LaVerne, AB would likely end up like another side character who didn't have a support system.
LaVerne himself goes through a number of things trying to find his way in the world, but his uncle kept being there for him. Angela was also there for him, but part of what she came to understand was that she could not save him on her own. LaVerne had to take responsibility for himself even as she could continue to love and support him as part of drawing him toward a more healthy path.
Glen grapples with the concept of God's blessing throughout the book. Theologically he is resistant to claiming God's blessing because of what that can mean for those who do not have what we consider God's blessing. If you have good weather and claim it as God's blessing then what does that mean when you do not have good weather? He shifts somewhat throughout the book because he comes to see that seeing God at work is part of seeking after hope. This is not a book of simple theological answers. This is a book of grappling, the type of grappling that we all need to do throughout life.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/thin-blue-smoke-by-doug-worgul-2/
______
Short review: Some stories are written to be savored. This meandering story is loosely connected to a BBQ joint in Kansas City. But that is just the setting. It is about the way that people come into one another's lives and make an impact. Both for good an ill. LaVerne is the owner of the BBQ place and a former pro baseball player. AB is his assistant and the best friend of Raymond, LaVerne's son that has passed away. Glen is an alcoholic Episcopal Priest and professor and the wise man that cannot take his own advice (think Brennan Manning). There are many other characters and the story jumps through time and from character to character giving the reader background to all of their stories of life, of redemption.
While clearly a Christian novel, this is the type of Christian novel that does not often get written. It has real people, not two dimensional cutouts. They have real struggles with sin and understanding life. They do not all believe the 'right' thing. I hope to see more by this author.
A much longer review and some quotes from that book are at my blog at http://bookwi.se/thin-blue-smoke-by-d...
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Worth Celebrating
Summary: A book biography of Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster.
I have been aware of Miriam Dixon (Mimi) for a while. I assume it was a Renovare podcast that I first became aware of her. She was a pastor for 40 years, retiring in 2019, 34 of those years as the pastor of a single church in Colorado. She has been on the board of director for Renovare for quite awhile.
And I have been aware of Celebration of Discipline for decades. I think I read it while I was in college or seminary for the first time. And I think I read it again about 15-20 years ago. And I have read portions of it when I needed to refer to a spiritual discipline since then. But it wasn't until Worth Celebrating and Celebration of Discipline where choosen for the Renovare Book Club that I picked it up again.
As is clear from Worth Celebrating, Celebration of Disciple was a very influential book. Many evangelicals and other conservative protestants were resistant to spiritual disciplines because they felt "too Catholic" or thought they were a repudiation of the concept of grace. Foster as an outsider to the evangelical world, but with enough awareness of the evangelical world was able to frame spiritual disciplines in a way that was attractive and helpful.
I have listened to a number of interviews with both Richard Foster and Mimi Dixon. Foster did not want an academic to write the book biography of Celebration of Discipline, he wanted a pastor who had worked to form people spiritually to write it. I think there is some wisdom to that, but I also think that I have appreciated book biographies by people like Alan Jacobs, George Marsden and Martin Marty. I am less reluctant to have academic who are familiar with the subject write book biographies than Foster is and I am not sure at the end if I think Dixon was the right choice. She is enthusiastic, she was personally formed by Celebration of Discipline. She already had a relationship with Foster being on the Renovare board of directors.
It is more in the inteviews than the book, but Dixon was tickled by the idea of a book biography. It was new to her. She did real archival research and a ton of interviews. Worth Celebrating isn't a bad book, but I also don't think it is a great book. That being said, I reread all the reviews of book biographies that I have written about and the concept is pretty formulaic and the quality mostly pretty dry. I think Jacobs' biography of the Book of Common Prayer is probably the best, but it also has the longest history.
I do think it is interesting to understand context and how a book was recieved. CS Lewis was not naturally a darling of American Evangelicals, but he became one. Bonhoeffer has been distorted by many, but that story of how he was introducted to the large Christian world after his death does matter to how he is read now. And in the case of Worth Celebrating, if you are under 50, you probably have always been aware of the spiritual formation movement, but it is a fairly recent movement and it is unlikely that we would have Eugene Peterson or Dallas Willard or the host of younger authors and pastors and speakers without Richard Foster.
I do think that a bit more distance may have helped Worth Celebrating be a little bit better of a book. But, again, there is some value in writing about the book of an author who is still alive and who known well. Worth Celebrating is a short book. If you haven't read Celebration of Discipline I would recommend that over jumping into Worth Celebrating first. But there is value in understanding the context and culture to which the book was published and how it has impacted people in the nearly 45 years since it was published. For those who find that interesting, this is worth reading.
Two quotes that I think sum up why it may have been important for Mimi Dixon to have written it as opposed to a more academic author:
As Richard Foster reflected on what he was seeing and hearing from readers, he drew the same conclusion. People were mistaking the means for the end. They were centering on the Disciplines themselves as though they were the most important thing. Richard found himself repeatedly stressing, “When we look at the Bible, we don’t find a great amount of discussion about the spiritual Disciplines. Oh, it’s there, and it’s important—but the one thing that is overwhelmingly important in the Bible is hearing and obeying God. The Disciplines are only a way of helping us to do that; they are a way we set ourselves before God. It is God who accomplishes the work of transformation in the human heart.”
and
"Always insist that the focus be your relationship with God, the with-God life that we’re after, and not on how to master one practice or another. One practice might help this individual; another practice is what will help that individual. We learn the heart of the person, and spiritual Disciplines appropriate for the individual will flow out of this life together. We don’t try to nail any of this down too tight. In my opinion, it is futile to try to measure this or that. We can know that a person is growing spiritually when they are more loving. That’s how we know."
I think Dixon did discern and write about the problems of mistaking the disciplines as seeking after God and she was well aware that Foster is not trying to overwhelm people, but introduce them to the range of spiritual disciplines.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/worth-celebrating/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A book biography of Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster.
I have been aware of Miriam Dixon (Mimi) for a while. I assume it was a Renovare podcast that I first became aware of her. She was a pastor for 40 years, retiring in 2019, 34 of those years as the pastor of a single church in Colorado. She has been on the board of director for Renovare for quite awhile.
And I have been aware of Celebration of Discipline for decades. I think I read it while I was in college or seminary for the first time. And I think I read it again about 15-20 years ago. And I have read portions of it when I needed to refer to a spiritual discipline since then. But it wasn't until Worth Celebrating and Celebration of Discipline where choosen for the Renovare Book Club that I picked it up again.
As is clear from Worth Celebrating, Celebration of Disciple was a very influential book. Many evangelicals and other conservative protestants were resistant to spiritual disciplines because they felt "too Catholic" or thought they were a repudiation of the concept of grace. Foster as an outsider to the evangelical world, but with enough awareness of the evangelical world was able to frame spiritual disciplines in a way that was attractive and helpful.
I have listened to a number of interviews with both Richard Foster and Mimi Dixon. Foster did not want an academic to write the book biography of Celebration of Discipline, he wanted a pastor who had worked to form people spiritually to write it. I think there is some wisdom to that, but I also think that I have appreciated book biographies by people like Alan Jacobs, George Marsden and Martin Marty. I am less reluctant to have academic who are familiar with the subject write book biographies than Foster is and I am not sure at the end if I think Dixon was the right choice. She is enthusiastic, she was personally formed by Celebration of Discipline. She already had a relationship with Foster being on the Renovare board of directors.
It is more in the inteviews than the book, but Dixon was tickled by the idea of a book biography. It was new to her. She did real archival research and a ton of interviews. Worth Celebrating isn't a bad book, but I also don't think it is a great book. That being said, I reread all the reviews of book biographies that I have written about and the concept is pretty formulaic and the quality mostly pretty dry. I think Jacobs' biography of the Book of Common Prayer is probably the best, but it also has the longest history.
I do think it is interesting to understand context and how a book was recieved. CS Lewis was not naturally a darling of American Evangelicals, but he became one. Bonhoeffer has been distorted by many, but that story of how he was introducted to the large Christian world after his death does matter to how he is read now. And in the case of Worth Celebrating, if you are under 50, you probably have always been aware of the spiritual formation movement, but it is a fairly recent movement and it is unlikely that we would have Eugene Peterson or Dallas Willard or the host of younger authors and pastors and speakers without Richard Foster.
I do think that a bit more distance may have helped Worth Celebrating be a little bit better of a book. But, again, there is some value in writing about the book of an author who is still alive and who known well. Worth Celebrating is a short book. If you haven't read Celebration of Discipline I would recommend that over jumping into Worth Celebrating first. But there is value in understanding the context and culture to which the book was published and how it has impacted people in the nearly 45 years since it was published. For those who find that interesting, this is worth reading.
Two quotes that I think sum up why it may have been important for Mimi Dixon to have written it as opposed to a more academic author:
As Richard Foster reflected on what he was seeing and hearing from readers, he drew the same conclusion. People were mistaking the means for the end. They were centering on the Disciplines themselves as though they were the most important thing. Richard found himself repeatedly stressing, “When we look at the Bible, we don’t find a great amount of discussion about the spiritual Disciplines. Oh, it’s there, and it’s important—but the one thing that is overwhelmingly important in the Bible is hearing and obeying God. The Disciplines are only a way of helping us to do that; they are a way we set ourselves before God. It is God who accomplishes the work of transformation in the human heart.”
and
"Always insist that the focus be your relationship with God, the with-God life that we’re after, and not on how to master one practice or another. One practice might help this individual; another practice is what will help that individual. We learn the heart of the person, and spiritual Disciplines appropriate for the individual will flow out of this life together. We don’t try to nail any of this down too tight. In my opinion, it is futile to try to measure this or that. We can know that a person is growing spiritually when they are more loving. That’s how we know."
I think Dixon did discern and write about the problems of mistaking the disciplines as seeking after God and she was well aware that Foster is not trying to overwhelm people, but introduce them to the range of spiritual disciplines.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/worth-celebrating/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: This books is a series of essays about protest, racism, violence and was the last book published before his death.
I decided to read Faith and Violence after reading Daniel Horan's book on Merton earlier this year. I probably should have just bought a used copy of the book (which is what I think is probably the best and certainly the cheapest option), but instead I used interlibrary loan. The book I received was a first edition hardcover. There is something interesting in reading a first edition book that came out just over 50 years ago and which clearly had been read, but not by all that many people.
I didn't have time to read the whole book. It came about a week before I went on vacation and I was busy getting ready for vacation or I was actually on vacation. Almost all of the reading I did (about half the book) was in the car. I was primed to read it with a view toward modern use of Merton's ideas because of Horan's essays. And it felt like he was writing with a more contemporary approach toward activism and faith and social problems than some other contemporaries of the era. Part of what I appreciated about Horan's essays is that he both talked about how we can use Merton in contemporary thought and how Merton was a person of his time and limited in some ways by that historical position.
What I was most interested in is how much Merton approached social issues as systems not individual acts or the acts of unattached individuals. This is not just a book about violence "out there" but a discussion with other Christians about how we as Christians uphold violence. In the introduction he explicitly calls out Reinhold Niebuhr's "realism" as justifying the use of force and violence. Merton is calling for nonviolent resistance to injustice. Faith and Violence would have been published just before Martin Luther King Jr's assassination. That whole year, and really since 1963, the role of nonviolence resistance was being questioned in the civil rights movement. And in 1968, the resistance to the war in Vietnam was strengthening.
conversationMany who write about nonviolent resistance do so with the explicit understanding that injustice harms both the oppressed and the oppressor. Nonviolence is a means of love for the oppressor.
"The Christian can renounce the protection of the violence and risk being humble, therefore vulnerable, not because he trusts in the supposes efficacy of a gentle and persuasive tactic that will disarm hatred and tame cruelty, but because he believes that the hidden power of the Gospel is demanding to be manifested in and through his own poor person." (p15)
Earlier this year I read a biography of John Lewis and I previously have read a biography of Stokely Carmichael, their fundamental disagreement was about nonviolence. Lewis believed in it as a methodology and ideology, while Carmichael only saw it as a tactic. And once nonviolence was not achieving the goal at the speed he wanted, he dropped it as a tactic. It is very much in this conversation that Merton is writing. Lewis resigned from SNCC in late 1966 by early 1968, Lewis was working for RFK's presidential campaign, until RFK's own assassination.
Merton continues in that essay on to discussed the problem of doing the right thing for the wrong reason or by the wrong means. This is a continual problem with fighting injustice. There is a standard that those who fight injustice must hold themselves to that is different from those who uphold injustice.
Christian non-violence, therefore, is convinced that the manner in which the conflict for truth is wages will itself manifest or obscure the truth. To fight for truth by dishonest, violent, inhuman, or unreasonable means would simply betray the truth one is trying to vindicate. The absolute refusal of evil or suspect means is a necessary element in the witness of non-violence. As Pope Paul said before the United Nations Assembly: "Men cannot be brothers if they are not humble. no matter how justified it may appear, pride provokes tensions and struggles for prestige, domination, colonialism and egoism. In a word, pride shatters brotherhood." He went on to say that attempts to establish peace on the basis of violence were in fact a manifestation of human pride. "If you wish to be brothers, let the weapons fall from your hands. You cannot love with offensive weapons in your hands" (p23)
The book continues discussion of Black Power, Vietnam, and a fourth section that I did not get to. That fourth section may have been more integrated than I think, but the death of God, the book Honest to God, and "godless Christianity" all feel quite different from the earlier discussions of nonviolence, Black power and Vietnam.
I have seen several copies of Faith and Violence in used book stores for under $5. At some point I will probably come back to it, but I am regularly surprised about accessible many older books are.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/faith-and-violence/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: This books is a series of essays about protest, racism, violence and was the last book published before his death.
I decided to read Faith and Violence after reading Daniel Horan's book on Merton earlier this year. I probably should have just bought a used copy of the book (which is what I think is probably the best and certainly the cheapest option), but instead I used interlibrary loan. The book I received was a first edition hardcover. There is something interesting in reading a first edition book that came out just over 50 years ago and which clearly had been read, but not by all that many people.
I didn't have time to read the whole book. It came about a week before I went on vacation and I was busy getting ready for vacation or I was actually on vacation. Almost all of the reading I did (about half the book) was in the car. I was primed to read it with a view toward modern use of Merton's ideas because of Horan's essays. And it felt like he was writing with a more contemporary approach toward activism and faith and social problems than some other contemporaries of the era. Part of what I appreciated about Horan's essays is that he both talked about how we can use Merton in contemporary thought and how Merton was a person of his time and limited in some ways by that historical position.
What I was most interested in is how much Merton approached social issues as systems not individual acts or the acts of unattached individuals. This is not just a book about violence "out there" but a discussion with other Christians about how we as Christians uphold violence. In the introduction he explicitly calls out Reinhold Niebuhr's "realism" as justifying the use of force and violence. Merton is calling for nonviolent resistance to injustice. Faith and Violence would have been published just before Martin Luther King Jr's assassination. That whole year, and really since 1963, the role of nonviolence resistance was being questioned in the civil rights movement. And in 1968, the resistance to the war in Vietnam was strengthening.
conversationMany who write about nonviolent resistance do so with the explicit understanding that injustice harms both the oppressed and the oppressor. Nonviolence is a means of love for the oppressor.
"The Christian can renounce the protection of the violence and risk being humble, therefore vulnerable, not because he trusts in the supposes efficacy of a gentle and persuasive tactic that will disarm hatred and tame cruelty, but because he believes that the hidden power of the Gospel is demanding to be manifested in and through his own poor person." (p15)
Earlier this year I read a biography of John Lewis and I previously have read a biography of Stokely Carmichael, their fundamental disagreement was about nonviolence. Lewis believed in it as a methodology and ideology, while Carmichael only saw it as a tactic. And once nonviolence was not achieving the goal at the speed he wanted, he dropped it as a tactic. It is very much in this conversation that Merton is writing. Lewis resigned from SNCC in late 1966 by early 1968, Lewis was working for RFK's presidential campaign, until RFK's own assassination.
Merton continues in that essay on to discussed the problem of doing the right thing for the wrong reason or by the wrong means. This is a continual problem with fighting injustice. There is a standard that those who fight injustice must hold themselves to that is different from those who uphold injustice.
Christian non-violence, therefore, is convinced that the manner in which the conflict for truth is wages will itself manifest or obscure the truth. To fight for truth by dishonest, violent, inhuman, or unreasonable means would simply betray the truth one is trying to vindicate. The absolute refusal of evil or suspect means is a necessary element in the witness of non-violence. As Pope Paul said before the United Nations Assembly: "Men cannot be brothers if they are not humble. no matter how justified it may appear, pride provokes tensions and struggles for prestige, domination, colonialism and egoism. In a word, pride shatters brotherhood." He went on to say that attempts to establish peace on the basis of violence were in fact a manifestation of human pride. "If you wish to be brothers, let the weapons fall from your hands. You cannot love with offensive weapons in your hands" (p23)
The book continues discussion of Black Power, Vietnam, and a fourth section that I did not get to. That fourth section may have been more integrated than I think, but the death of God, the book Honest to God, and "godless Christianity" all feel quite different from the earlier discussions of nonviolence, Black power and Vietnam.
I have seen several copies of Faith and Violence in used book stores for under $5. At some point I will probably come back to it, but I am regularly surprised about accessible many older books are.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/faith-and-violence/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A historical look at how Christian mystics understood mysticism and how that has changed.
Anyone reading along with my reviews is probably aware that I am about 18 months into a reading project on the idea of Christian discernment. And while I have not ended that exploration of discernment, I am at the point of a deep dive where I need to explore the connected ideas to discernment so that I can better understand how to proceed.
A number of years ago I was exploring the trinity and I realized that in exploring the trinity I needed to better understand the concept of hermeneutics and I think I ended up reading more books about hermeneutics than I did about the trinity. That exploration of the trinity comes up because one of the most helpful books for me in exploring the trinity was The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church by Franz Dunzl. What made it so helpful was that it traced the early doctrine of the trinity but in doing so, Dunzl showed that part of the development of the language around the trinity was linguistic (there was a shift from Greek to Latin as the lingua franca) and part of the development of the langauge around the trinity was about shifts in philosophy and the language of philosophy.
If you have traced Christian doctrine over time, the way that cultural issues shift the way that we think of theology is common. Part of what mattered in the reformation was that thee was a shift in how we think of the state and how we think of legal realities and this corresponded to the increasing use of legal language in regard to the doctrines of salvation. In a more modern example, the shifts in understanding about gender and gender roles have shifted the language that some are using in regard to trinitarian theology with regard to the rise of supporters of the The Eternal Subordination of the Son or the The Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son and in a different area some of the changes in language and meaning of the economic trinity or social trinitarian theology.
I bring all of this up because Baxter's Introduction to Christian Mysticism has played a bit of a similar role as Dunzl for me. Mysticism is a notoriously difficult subject to discuss because the very nature of mysticism is discussion about what is "super natural" or what is above or outside of the natural realm. Because language is often referential, referring to something that is outside of nature makes it difficult to draw metaphors or analogy. Part of the differences in the way that we think of mysticism over time are differences of what is culturally being responded to as well as differences in philosophy and language. (The Mystery of God was a very helpful book on the right and wrong use of mystery within theological exploration.)
I picked up An Introduction to Christian Mysticism because I have recently read Baxter's book on CS Lewis and how his writing and thinking were influenced by medieval thinking. And as I think is appropriate, much of An Introduction to Christian Mysticism is concerned with the same broad time period. A short introduction like this cannot grapple with everything, but this is a good illustration as to how mysticism relates to knowledge, negative theology (or Apophatic theology), the role of action and contemplation with regard to mysticism. I think most importantly to my project, Baxter traces some of the ways that the changing understanding of the interiority of the human being (the inner self, personality, pyschology, etc.) influence the ways that we speak of mysticism. It is too strong to say that to know yourself is to know God, but that is how some mystics have come to see contemplation.
An Introduction to Christian Mysticism opens with a discussion of the rediscovery of mysticism in the 20th and 21st century. I have been reading The Celebration of Discipline and a book biography of Celebration of Disciple, Worth Celebrating by Miriam Dixon with the Renovare book club and they both also discuss this rediscovery. It has come in several waves, the Azuza revival brought a wave of interest in Pentecostal and charismatic worship and the Holy Spirit. Evelyn Underhill, Thomas Merton, and AW Tozer, among others prompted a revival of evangelical and protestant awareness of the history of the mystics. And Celebration of Discipline and other books in the spiritual formation movement has brought about increased attention to the practices of mysticism. Baxter is almost entirely focused on the intellectual history of mysticism. It is not that he is unaware of the role of the practices, but that while he acknowledges the practices and discussed the role of a type of muscular Christianity in his discussion of the desert fathers and of St Francis, that isn't his main focus.
After the introduction to the topic of mysticism and its revival, Baxter traces both thematically and temporally from Plato and other pagans of antiquity to Augustine, the mystics interested in negative theology (Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Nyssa, and Meister Echhart), before returning to the desert fathers. And then returns to the later medieval world with lectio divina and the ways that Christian contemplation relates to God through contemplation of his word.
I listened to this as an audiobook and while the narrator was fine, this is a book that probably is not well suited to audio. Much of the book is oriented around ideas and Baxter is, as much as possible, oriented toward allowing earlier Christians to speak for themselves about mysticism. The sheer number of quotes and the way that Baxter mixes the quotes with his interpretive gloss means that it is very hard at times to know where the quote ends and where Baxter's commentary starts. And many of these quotes are either dense or coming from a very different cultural perspective and it would be helpful to read this in print so that you can go back and reread sections.
My plan is to watch the book price and pick it up the next time it goes on sale. But in the meantime, I am going to pick up some Evelyn Underhill and some of the older mystical books to read directly. I am still convinced that there is a very important role for understanding discernment in modern Christian discipleship. But I also think that without an understanding of mysticism and how we connect to a spiritual God, there is a limit to what we can say about discernment. Discernment involves understanding emotion, but it is not simply emotion. Discernment very much is interested in hearing from God and relating to God, but one of the important aspects of that is enough self awareness to grapple with what is ourselves and what is God. And then there is the ever-present question about what to do in the face of a God who appears distant or is not there when we feel like we want him to be there. All three of those questions and more have an aspect of mysticism in them.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/an-introduction-to-christian-mysticism/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A historical look at how Christian mystics understood mysticism and how that has changed.
Anyone reading along with my reviews is probably aware that I am about 18 months into a reading project on the idea of Christian discernment. And while I have not ended that exploration of discernment, I am at the point of a deep dive where I need to explore the connected ideas to discernment so that I can better understand how to proceed.
A number of years ago I was exploring the trinity and I realized that in exploring the trinity I needed to better understand the concept of hermeneutics and I think I ended up reading more books about hermeneutics than I did about the trinity. That exploration of the trinity comes up because one of the most helpful books for me in exploring the trinity was The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church by Franz Dunzl. What made it so helpful was that it traced the early doctrine of the trinity but in doing so, Dunzl showed that part of the development of the language around the trinity was linguistic (there was a shift from Greek to Latin as the lingua franca) and part of the development of the langauge around the trinity was about shifts in philosophy and the language of philosophy.
If you have traced Christian doctrine over time, the way that cultural issues shift the way that we think of theology is common. Part of what mattered in the reformation was that thee was a shift in how we think of the state and how we think of legal realities and this corresponded to the increasing use of legal language in regard to the doctrines of salvation. In a more modern example, the shifts in understanding about gender and gender roles have shifted the language that some are using in regard to trinitarian theology with regard to the rise of supporters of the The Eternal Subordination of the Son or the The Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son and in a different area some of the changes in language and meaning of the economic trinity or social trinitarian theology.
I bring all of this up because Baxter's Introduction to Christian Mysticism has played a bit of a similar role as Dunzl for me. Mysticism is a notoriously difficult subject to discuss because the very nature of mysticism is discussion about what is "super natural" or what is above or outside of the natural realm. Because language is often referential, referring to something that is outside of nature makes it difficult to draw metaphors or analogy. Part of the differences in the way that we think of mysticism over time are differences of what is culturally being responded to as well as differences in philosophy and language. (The Mystery of God was a very helpful book on the right and wrong use of mystery within theological exploration.)
I picked up An Introduction to Christian Mysticism because I have recently read Baxter's book on CS Lewis and how his writing and thinking were influenced by medieval thinking. And as I think is appropriate, much of An Introduction to Christian Mysticism is concerned with the same broad time period. A short introduction like this cannot grapple with everything, but this is a good illustration as to how mysticism relates to knowledge, negative theology (or Apophatic theology), the role of action and contemplation with regard to mysticism. I think most importantly to my project, Baxter traces some of the ways that the changing understanding of the interiority of the human being (the inner self, personality, pyschology, etc.) influence the ways that we speak of mysticism. It is too strong to say that to know yourself is to know God, but that is how some mystics have come to see contemplation.
An Introduction to Christian Mysticism opens with a discussion of the rediscovery of mysticism in the 20th and 21st century. I have been reading The Celebration of Discipline and a book biography of Celebration of Disciple, Worth Celebrating by Miriam Dixon with the Renovare book club and they both also discuss this rediscovery. It has come in several waves, the Azuza revival brought a wave of interest in Pentecostal and charismatic worship and the Holy Spirit. Evelyn Underhill, Thomas Merton, and AW Tozer, among others prompted a revival of evangelical and protestant awareness of the history of the mystics. And Celebration of Discipline and other books in the spiritual formation movement has brought about increased attention to the practices of mysticism. Baxter is almost entirely focused on the intellectual history of mysticism. It is not that he is unaware of the role of the practices, but that while he acknowledges the practices and discussed the role of a type of muscular Christianity in his discussion of the desert fathers and of St Francis, that isn't his main focus.
After the introduction to the topic of mysticism and its revival, Baxter traces both thematically and temporally from Plato and other pagans of antiquity to Augustine, the mystics interested in negative theology (Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Nyssa, and Meister Echhart), before returning to the desert fathers. And then returns to the later medieval world with lectio divina and the ways that Christian contemplation relates to God through contemplation of his word.
I listened to this as an audiobook and while the narrator was fine, this is a book that probably is not well suited to audio. Much of the book is oriented around ideas and Baxter is, as much as possible, oriented toward allowing earlier Christians to speak for themselves about mysticism. The sheer number of quotes and the way that Baxter mixes the quotes with his interpretive gloss means that it is very hard at times to know where the quote ends and where Baxter's commentary starts. And many of these quotes are either dense or coming from a very different cultural perspective and it would be helpful to read this in print so that you can go back and reread sections.
My plan is to watch the book price and pick it up the next time it goes on sale. But in the meantime, I am going to pick up some Evelyn Underhill and some of the older mystical books to read directly. I am still convinced that there is a very important role for understanding discernment in modern Christian discipleship. But I also think that without an understanding of mysticism and how we connect to a spiritual God, there is a limit to what we can say about discernment. Discernment involves understanding emotion, but it is not simply emotion. Discernment very much is interested in hearing from God and relating to God, but one of the important aspects of that is enough self awareness to grapple with what is ourselves and what is God. And then there is the ever-present question about what to do in the face of a God who appears distant or is not there when we feel like we want him to be there. All three of those questions and more have an aspect of mysticism in them.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/an-introduction-to-christian-mysticism/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: An exploration of post-colonial practical theology in the Anglican world.
I am a fan of reading widely, but in my wide ranging reading I do not always know how to really write about what I read. This is a book that I appreciated and recommend, but I also need to say up front I am not qualified to evaluate. I have some understanding of post-colonial theory, but my understanding is very cursory.
I grew up baptist and have always attended baptist or non-denominational churches until the past 18 months when I started attending an Episcopal church. I used the Book of Common Prayer for years, which is the pull part of moving toward the Anglican tradition. The push part of that decision is my practical and theological changes from autonomous local churches in the face of abuse scandals and leader misbehavior. Episcopal structures are not immune to abuse and leader misbehavior (see George Carey and Justin Welby's resignations and the variety of scandals in ANCA and TEC). But part of the differences is that episcopal systems of church governance have the theoretical possibility of addressing sinful leaders, autonomous non-denominational or baptist church systems often do not have any ability to address sinful leaders in a meaningful way.
One of the themes of The Anglican Tradition from a Postcolonial Perspective is that interaction is bidirectional. Yes, colonial harm went from the colonizer to the colonized, but there are other interactions. This is similar to the focus in David Swartz's Facing West: American Evangelicals in an Age of World Christianity, which explores the ways that American Evangelicals were impacted by missions and interaction with world Christianity. Not all feedback is positive. In a complicated way, Swartz's exploration of the Homogenous Unit Principle and the way that was brought back from the mission field and was used to uphold church segregation beyond when segregation in other cultural areas was frowned upon, is an example of how not all feedback is positive.
But many areas of cross fertilization are positive. One of the examples in The Anglican Tradition from a Postcolonial Perspective is the fact that women's ordination occurred in Hong Kong about 50 years before it was approved in England. Women's ordination in Hong Kong and then China was a result of the realities of World War II. From that practical expediency movement on women's ordination moved first to other global south areas and then to the United States and the UK.
Postcolonial theory is particularly relevant to the anglican world. The Church of England was a state church and that state church was the state church of an empire that was one of the most extensive in global history. And that empire still has aspects of it in place and within the living memory of many, it was much more widespread. Post colonial analysis of the way that the global communion interacts and works makes a lot of sense, especially because of the stresses on that global communion.
The United States revolution changed the way that the Church of England related to the churches outside the geography of the UK. In 1867 the Lambeth Conference first met. There were several reasons for why the global Anglican communion were called together, but one of them was to discuss how and whether to accept polygamous men into church membership and if they were allowed to attend services, whether they should be baptized and given communion. It is not exactly parallel with the concerns around LGBTQ inclusion in the anglican communion now, but there are issues of sexuality and culture that are part of that discussion. The connection between sexuality and inculturation and local authority of the bishop has been at play in many of the meetings (that happen every decade) since that first meeting about 150 years ago.
I think like a good academic book, The Anglican Tradition from a Postcolonial Perspective complicates the narrative. It is not only that the global south is universally more conservative around sexuality than the US and UK. There are very conservative movements within the US and UK and there are inclusive areas of the global south. The issues are complex and listening to the whole church and paying attention to areas of post colonial theory as the global communion meets and discusses these complex and complicated issues is no silver bullet solution. But the reality is that the anglican communion was shaped by colonialism. And that has to be part of understanding the way forward.
Kwok Pui-Lan is herself from the global south but often working and teaching in the western contexts. She is rightly raising issues and pointing out areas of disagreement while noting the history which matters to how we proceed.
The past Archbishops of Canterbury have all have a level of taint or controversy from LGBTQ, sexual abuse and gender issues. Welby has resigned and the process of a new archbishop will be difficult. Rowan Williams certainly tried to find a way forward, but his academic chops did not seem to be up to the backdoor political wrangling. (I recently watched the movie Conclave and it does seem to be a relevant movie to the context.) And recently the George Carey (Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002) resigned his priesthood because mishandling of sex abuse investigations.). Before Carey, Robert Runcie was the archbishop from 1980 to 1991 and oversaw the official recognition of women as priests in the UK. Every archbishop has had significant controversy around issues of gender and sexuality.
The Anglican Tradition from a Postcolonial Perspective by Kwok Pui-Lan will be too academic for some readers. It is not a difficult book to read, but may require a level of background theology, church history and other disciplines to fully understand some of the context. That being said, if people are interested in the issues, the very fact that they are interested probably means that they have the background to be able to read the book and will profit from it.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-anglican-tradition/ (there are lots of working links there.)
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: An exploration of post-colonial practical theology in the Anglican world.
I am a fan of reading widely, but in my wide ranging reading I do not always know how to really write about what I read. This is a book that I appreciated and recommend, but I also need to say up front I am not qualified to evaluate. I have some understanding of post-colonial theory, but my understanding is very cursory.
I grew up baptist and have always attended baptist or non-denominational churches until the past 18 months when I started attending an Episcopal church. I used the Book of Common Prayer for years, which is the pull part of moving toward the Anglican tradition. The push part of that decision is my practical and theological changes from autonomous local churches in the face of abuse scandals and leader misbehavior. Episcopal structures are not immune to abuse and leader misbehavior (see George Carey and Justin Welby's resignations and the variety of scandals in ANCA and TEC). But part of the differences is that episcopal systems of church governance have the theoretical possibility of addressing sinful leaders, autonomous non-denominational or baptist church systems often do not have any ability to address sinful leaders in a meaningful way.
One of the themes of The Anglican Tradition from a Postcolonial Perspective is that interaction is bidirectional. Yes, colonial harm went from the colonizer to the colonized, but there are other interactions. This is similar to the focus in David Swartz's Facing West: American Evangelicals in an Age of World Christianity, which explores the ways that American Evangelicals were impacted by missions and interaction with world Christianity. Not all feedback is positive. In a complicated way, Swartz's exploration of the Homogenous Unit Principle and the way that was brought back from the mission field and was used to uphold church segregation beyond when segregation in other cultural areas was frowned upon, is an example of how not all feedback is positive.
But many areas of cross fertilization are positive. One of the examples in The Anglican Tradition from a Postcolonial Perspective is the fact that women's ordination occurred in Hong Kong about 50 years before it was approved in England. Women's ordination in Hong Kong and then China was a result of the realities of World War II. From that practical expediency movement on women's ordination moved first to other global south areas and then to the United States and the UK.
Postcolonial theory is particularly relevant to the anglican world. The Church of England was a state church and that state church was the state church of an empire that was one of the most extensive in global history. And that empire still has aspects of it in place and within the living memory of many, it was much more widespread. Post colonial analysis of the way that the global communion interacts and works makes a lot of sense, especially because of the stresses on that global communion.
The United States revolution changed the way that the Church of England related to the churches outside the geography of the UK. In 1867 the Lambeth Conference first met. There were several reasons for why the global Anglican communion were called together, but one of them was to discuss how and whether to accept polygamous men into church membership and if they were allowed to attend services, whether they should be baptized and given communion. It is not exactly parallel with the concerns around LGBTQ inclusion in the anglican communion now, but there are issues of sexuality and culture that are part of that discussion. The connection between sexuality and inculturation and local authority of the bishop has been at play in many of the meetings (that happen every decade) since that first meeting about 150 years ago.
I think like a good academic book, The Anglican Tradition from a Postcolonial Perspective complicates the narrative. It is not only that the global south is universally more conservative around sexuality than the US and UK. There are very conservative movements within the US and UK and there are inclusive areas of the global south. The issues are complex and listening to the whole church and paying attention to areas of post colonial theory as the global communion meets and discusses these complex and complicated issues is no silver bullet solution. But the reality is that the anglican communion was shaped by colonialism. And that has to be part of understanding the way forward.
Kwok Pui-Lan is herself from the global south but often working and teaching in the western contexts. She is rightly raising issues and pointing out areas of disagreement while noting the history which matters to how we proceed.
The past Archbishops of Canterbury have all have a level of taint or controversy from LGBTQ, sexual abuse and gender issues. Welby has resigned and the process of a new archbishop will be difficult. Rowan Williams certainly tried to find a way forward, but his academic chops did not seem to be up to the backdoor political wrangling. (I recently watched the movie Conclave and it does seem to be a relevant movie to the context.) And recently the George Carey (Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002) resigned his priesthood because mishandling of sex abuse investigations.). Before Carey, Robert Runcie was the archbishop from 1980 to 1991 and oversaw the official recognition of women as priests in the UK. Every archbishop has had significant controversy around issues of gender and sexuality.
The Anglican Tradition from a Postcolonial Perspective by Kwok Pui-Lan will be too academic for some readers. It is not a difficult book to read, but may require a level of background theology, church history and other disciplines to fully understand some of the context. That being said, if people are interested in the issues, the very fact that they are interested probably means that they have the background to be able to read the book and will profit from it.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-anglican-tradition/ (there are lots of working links there.)
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: The backstory on the Wicket Witch of the West in Oz.
I do not remember when I read Wicked the first time. My guess is that I read it after I saw the stage adaptation in 2007 or so. I have not previously written about it so it was likely before 2009 when I started blogging. After watching the recent movie, I decided to reread the book again because I really have no specific memory of the book other than the broadest strokes of the story and I suspected most of what I remembered was from the stage production not the book.
To the best of my memory, I think have seen the stage production either two or three times between 2006 and 2013 and now have read the book twice and watched the movie once. (My wife and I saw it together to see if our kids were ready for it and we will probably take them to see it over Christmas break.)
Part of what prompted me to read it again was all of the "don't let your kids read this" posts. I remember the book being for adults, but I didn't have any specific memories of it being overly crude or sexual or violent. One of my current pet peeves is classifying books with sex as "adult" instead of thinking about a wide variety of reasons why a book is written for an adult audience.
Yes, I don't think that Wicked was written for a pre-teen audience. I think putting the movie images on the cover is a bad idea because the stage musical and the movie are very different stories from the book. I hope that after the second movie is out, that there will be a movie novelization book. I think most pre-teen readers will be bored because the book is primarily concerned with adult issues, not adult as in sex (although there is sex in it) but adult as in questions of meaning, purpose and the role of naturalism and faith. Wicked is a slow story that that covers about 40 years of time.
The book is nearly 40 years old at this point so I am not going to worry too much about spoilers, but I also am not trying to ruin the book if you haven't read it. The book opens with Elphaba's parents. Her father is a fire and brimstone preacher who is calling the community to holiness. Her mother is a younger daughter who can't wait to get out of her home and marries the first man that shows an interest in her beyond her family's position and money. He travels on preaching tours and she is lonely and has many affairs and one night stands with whoever happens to come by in her rural poor community. She has a problem with drugs and alcohol, he has a problem with self indulgent navel gazing and not paying attention to anyone around him.
When Elphaba is born with green skin and razor sharp teeth, the father blames himself and leaves home even more on preaching tours as penance and her mother continues her own avoidance schemes. Eventually a refugee, Turtle Heart, from another part of Oz comes by and ends up moving in for years. He provides stability for the couple and as is hinted at in the early pages and is expressly discussed later, is sexually involved with both of Elphaba's parents separately and might be the father of Elphaba's younger sister Nessarose. The background and childhood of Elphaba is about the first quarter of the book, but isn't really even mentioned in the movie.
The stage show and movie really start with the Elphaba and Nessarose going away to school. Again, like many places the book differs in the story from the play and movie. In almost all cases, I think the play/movie are the better story arc.
The movie/play have basically no religious storyline, but in large part the book is a story of how different members of Elphaba's family use religion and religious ideas of make sense of the world. Elphaba's father is a fundamentalist who is trying to atone for his own sins through devotion. Elphaba's mother has no real faith, but she also is not opposed to faith. She just doesn't really let faith get in the way of her pleasure and self-interest. Elphaba, because of her green skin and being the child of a roving missionary (in the book) she has grown up with faith all around her but can't really believe. When she goes away to school and is allowed to explore her atheism, she becomes a naturalist who seeks to explain the world apart from faith. Nessarose is a true believer who commands faith for others as she comes into power.
I think the religious aspects of the story could be interested but largely fall flat because they are explored seriously. Faith here is largely about determinism and prophecy not a serious exploration of the supernatural. Elphaba seems to be destined to be magical even as she doesn't really believe in magic. In almost all cases, both she and the reader are not really sure if events are the result of magic or not. Toward the end of the book as Wicked has to account for meshing with the original Wizard of Oz story, Elphaba suspects she is going mad and there is bad luck and seemingly fate that drives the story.
There really are almost no aspect of the book vs musical/movie story arcs that I think are better in the book. There is more detail, but that doesn't mean better. Maguire tries to make Oz into a full economy and political system, but it feels more like satire than an actual system.
I think I like the book more on the second reading than the first. But I think it has the same problems of Lev Grossman's Magicians series and Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Grossman and Pullman are good authors, but the point of the books seems to be opposing the themes and stories of Lewis and Rowling not honoring them. I am a big fan of the retelling of fairy tales. I think KB Hoyle does a great job of it in her books, but to retell a story well you have to be willing to honor the original.
Brett McCracken at The Gospel Coalition wrote a review opposing the Wicked movie as being post-Christian morality. I think that review was wrong on a number of levels. First of all, the book and the musical/movie are not excusing wickedness, but exploring how we tend to see wickedness. We showed my children (9 and 11) the Wizard of Oz the first time a few days ago. Glinda when she introduces herself to Dorothy she asks Dorothy if she is a good witch or a bad witch. Dorothy says, "I'm not a witch at all. Witches are old and ugly." And then when Glinda reveals that she is a witch Dorothy responds, "You are? Oh, I beg your pardon. But I've never heard of a beautiful witch before."
Part of what Wicked is doing is not denying wickedness as a reality, but playing with the assumptions that the original had about beauty and ugliness and the connection to morality. There seems to continue to be assumptions that we can see who is evil. That is regularly still something that people say in response to sexual abuser or murders, "but they seemed so nice."
Elphaba is treated throughout her life as if she is bad because of how she looks. Her father especially views her as his curse. While Glinda is assumed to be good inherently because of her beauty. But the movie/musical more than the book show that Glinda's character is the problem not her beauty. In the book Glinda ages and isn't really beautiful any longer when she meets Dorothy. She is all facade no depth.
My problem with the book isn't that it is trying to explore what it means to be wicked. My problem is that it doesn't do a very good job of that, everyone is really a bad character, or at least has the potential to be bad. Even the good characters like Doctor Dillamond, Ama Clutch and Nanny are not very good. While the most despicable characters are those who just are willing to be openly despicable. One of the minor characters from the group of school friends, Avaric, was rich and awful and at the end when Elphaba again runs into him, his primary feature is just not caring that people see him as as evil as he is, he is authentic in his evilness.
The only charm to the original wizard was his bumbling nature. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." In the movie, the wizard is less bumbling and more interested in his plans. He creates fear and hatred against the Animals not because he hates Animals, but because he is willing to harm for the sake of his power. Again, that is not opposed to morality as McCracken suggests, but rather emphasizes traditional warnings about power. In the book, the wizard is largely off stage. He is other and I think Maguire couldn't figure out how to make him anything other than more evil than he already was.
The tragedies of Elphaba's life, her skin and family, the death of her love, her inability to overthrow the wizard were largely outside of her control. But what was in her control wasn't handled well either. She isn't a particularly sympathetic character even if we can see more of how she came to be and that is where the book fails. Largely the opposite of McCracken's charge.
McCracken largely thinks the problem with the "post-Christian morality" is that Wicked embraces "woke" theory of ethics. But in McCracken's framing, there is no place for working for justice outside of traditional systems of morality. I don't think McCracken has read the book, because if anything the book would support his framing more than the movie/musical do. The movie/musical story is better because it is trying to tell a simpler story.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wicked/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: The backstory on the Wicket Witch of the West in Oz.
I do not remember when I read Wicked the first time. My guess is that I read it after I saw the stage adaptation in 2007 or so. I have not previously written about it so it was likely before 2009 when I started blogging. After watching the recent movie, I decided to reread the book again because I really have no specific memory of the book other than the broadest strokes of the story and I suspected most of what I remembered was from the stage production not the book.
To the best of my memory, I think have seen the stage production either two or three times between 2006 and 2013 and now have read the book twice and watched the movie once. (My wife and I saw it together to see if our kids were ready for it and we will probably take them to see it over Christmas break.)
Part of what prompted me to read it again was all of the "don't let your kids read this" posts. I remember the book being for adults, but I didn't have any specific memories of it being overly crude or sexual or violent. One of my current pet peeves is classifying books with sex as "adult" instead of thinking about a wide variety of reasons why a book is written for an adult audience.
Yes, I don't think that Wicked was written for a pre-teen audience. I think putting the movie images on the cover is a bad idea because the stage musical and the movie are very different stories from the book. I hope that after the second movie is out, that there will be a movie novelization book. I think most pre-teen readers will be bored because the book is primarily concerned with adult issues, not adult as in sex (although there is sex in it) but adult as in questions of meaning, purpose and the role of naturalism and faith. Wicked is a slow story that that covers about 40 years of time.
The book is nearly 40 years old at this point so I am not going to worry too much about spoilers, but I also am not trying to ruin the book if you haven't read it. The book opens with Elphaba's parents. Her father is a fire and brimstone preacher who is calling the community to holiness. Her mother is a younger daughter who can't wait to get out of her home and marries the first man that shows an interest in her beyond her family's position and money. He travels on preaching tours and she is lonely and has many affairs and one night stands with whoever happens to come by in her rural poor community. She has a problem with drugs and alcohol, he has a problem with self indulgent navel gazing and not paying attention to anyone around him.
When Elphaba is born with green skin and razor sharp teeth, the father blames himself and leaves home even more on preaching tours as penance and her mother continues her own avoidance schemes. Eventually a refugee, Turtle Heart, from another part of Oz comes by and ends up moving in for years. He provides stability for the couple and as is hinted at in the early pages and is expressly discussed later, is sexually involved with both of Elphaba's parents separately and might be the father of Elphaba's younger sister Nessarose. The background and childhood of Elphaba is about the first quarter of the book, but isn't really even mentioned in the movie.
The stage show and movie really start with the Elphaba and Nessarose going away to school. Again, like many places the book differs in the story from the play and movie. In almost all cases, I think the play/movie are the better story arc.
The movie/play have basically no religious storyline, but in large part the book is a story of how different members of Elphaba's family use religion and religious ideas of make sense of the world. Elphaba's father is a fundamentalist who is trying to atone for his own sins through devotion. Elphaba's mother has no real faith, but she also is not opposed to faith. She just doesn't really let faith get in the way of her pleasure and self-interest. Elphaba, because of her green skin and being the child of a roving missionary (in the book) she has grown up with faith all around her but can't really believe. When she goes away to school and is allowed to explore her atheism, she becomes a naturalist who seeks to explain the world apart from faith. Nessarose is a true believer who commands faith for others as she comes into power.
I think the religious aspects of the story could be interested but largely fall flat because they are explored seriously. Faith here is largely about determinism and prophecy not a serious exploration of the supernatural. Elphaba seems to be destined to be magical even as she doesn't really believe in magic. In almost all cases, both she and the reader are not really sure if events are the result of magic or not. Toward the end of the book as Wicked has to account for meshing with the original Wizard of Oz story, Elphaba suspects she is going mad and there is bad luck and seemingly fate that drives the story.
There really are almost no aspect of the book vs musical/movie story arcs that I think are better in the book. There is more detail, but that doesn't mean better. Maguire tries to make Oz into a full economy and political system, but it feels more like satire than an actual system.
I think I like the book more on the second reading than the first. But I think it has the same problems of Lev Grossman's Magicians series and Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Grossman and Pullman are good authors, but the point of the books seems to be opposing the themes and stories of Lewis and Rowling not honoring them. I am a big fan of the retelling of fairy tales. I think KB Hoyle does a great job of it in her books, but to retell a story well you have to be willing to honor the original.
Brett McCracken at The Gospel Coalition wrote a review opposing the Wicked movie as being post-Christian morality. I think that review was wrong on a number of levels. First of all, the book and the musical/movie are not excusing wickedness, but exploring how we tend to see wickedness. We showed my children (9 and 11) the Wizard of Oz the first time a few days ago. Glinda when she introduces herself to Dorothy she asks Dorothy if she is a good witch or a bad witch. Dorothy says, "I'm not a witch at all. Witches are old and ugly." And then when Glinda reveals that she is a witch Dorothy responds, "You are? Oh, I beg your pardon. But I've never heard of a beautiful witch before."
Part of what Wicked is doing is not denying wickedness as a reality, but playing with the assumptions that the original had about beauty and ugliness and the connection to morality. There seems to continue to be assumptions that we can see who is evil. That is regularly still something that people say in response to sexual abuser or murders, "but they seemed so nice."
Elphaba is treated throughout her life as if she is bad because of how she looks. Her father especially views her as his curse. While Glinda is assumed to be good inherently because of her beauty. But the movie/musical more than the book show that Glinda's character is the problem not her beauty. In the book Glinda ages and isn't really beautiful any longer when she meets Dorothy. She is all facade no depth.
My problem with the book isn't that it is trying to explore what it means to be wicked. My problem is that it doesn't do a very good job of that, everyone is really a bad character, or at least has the potential to be bad. Even the good characters like Doctor Dillamond, Ama Clutch and Nanny are not very good. While the most despicable characters are those who just are willing to be openly despicable. One of the minor characters from the group of school friends, Avaric, was rich and awful and at the end when Elphaba again runs into him, his primary feature is just not caring that people see him as as evil as he is, he is authentic in his evilness.
The only charm to the original wizard was his bumbling nature. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." In the movie, the wizard is less bumbling and more interested in his plans. He creates fear and hatred against the Animals not because he hates Animals, but because he is willing to harm for the sake of his power. Again, that is not opposed to morality as McCracken suggests, but rather emphasizes traditional warnings about power. In the book, the wizard is largely off stage. He is other and I think Maguire couldn't figure out how to make him anything other than more evil than he already was.
The tragedies of Elphaba's life, her skin and family, the death of her love, her inability to overthrow the wizard were largely outside of her control. But what was in her control wasn't handled well either. She isn't a particularly sympathetic character even if we can see more of how she came to be and that is where the book fails. Largely the opposite of McCracken's charge.
McCracken largely thinks the problem with the "post-Christian morality" is that Wicked embraces "woke" theory of ethics. But in McCracken's framing, there is no place for working for justice outside of traditional systems of morality. I don't think McCracken has read the book, because if anything the book would support his framing more than the movie/musical do. The movie/musical story is better because it is trying to tell a simpler story.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wicked/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: An ethnographic study of an antiracism program in a Cincinnati evangelical megachurch.
Undivided was not a book on my radar. I had not planned on listening to the Holy Post Podcast which interviewed the author Hahrie Han. But then I got an email about a bonus segment which discussed the 2018 meeting at Wheaton College about what to do in response to Trump. I was well aware of that meeting and listened to that segment and then went back and listened to the whole podcast. If you are interested in just the interview, you can watch the YouTube video and skip to the 54 minute mark to get to the start of the interview.
Undivided in an ethnographic study of an antiracist training program in an evangelical megachurch. Hahrie Han became aware of it because of its involvement in passing a ballot initiative to provide free preK to Cincinnati students. She was told that the ballot initative was heavily influenced by a local megachurch. As she investigated she became intrigued because most DEI programs are not particularly effective at changing long term behavior. Han embedded herself in the church for nearly seven years to understand how the church and the program, which was eventually spun off to its organization, worked and what made it effective. Eventually the book discusses how it responded to the backlash to the program and the larger cultural backlash to antiracism programs within the US culture.
Undivided by Hahrie Han predominately traces four people while exploring the Undivided antiracism training program at Crossroads Church in Cincinnati. Han’s skill as a writer and researcher is evident throughout the book. Her four central characters are a Black male pastor (Chuck Mingo) who was the public face of the program. A white male participate in the initial program (Grant) who at the time worked for the Ohio Department of Corrections, eventually leading their social media team. Grant came to understand how much he didn’t understand about race, despite working in a racially diverse setting and having an adopted brother who was black. The third and fourth character are a Black woman (Sandra, a pseudonym) and a white woman (Jess). Undivided tells the story of these four characters of time and how they were changed by the program and by their relationships with one another. It is in large part the stickiness of the relationships with brought about the change within the characters.
I am a big fan of good ethnographic studies. Good ethnographic studies follow a group of individuals over a fairly long period of time to understand a context deeply. One of the best ethnographies I have read was Gang Leader for a Day, where a sociologist embedded himself in a Chicago housing project and local gang for years to understand how the culture and pressures of living in public housing and being within a gang worked. I was turned onto the model of ethnographic study after reading Slim's Table: Race, Respectability, and Masculinity
by Mitchell Duneier. I think I picked it up in the late 90s (it was published in ‘92) in part because I lived about two blocks from the restaurant at the center of that ethnography. Ethnography is inherently controversial because the act of embedding yourself into a community well enough to be able to report on the community impacts not just the community being studied (the observer effect) but also the researchers themselves are often changed because of the long term impact of the relationships. (At the end of the book, Hahrie Han say that her work with Undivided program and the people profiled and Crossroads church where the program was set drew her back to faith.)
I do not think I am an average reader for Undivided. I both have a good background in reading various ethnographies, but I am deeply invested in antiracism work in the evangelical world. I was interested in the book because I was well aware of a small meeting of Evangelical leaders which happened to be meeting at my Alma Mater, Wheaton College. Until recently I spent 15 years as a member of a different megachurch where I strongly advocated for racial awareness programs and called on the church to be more attuned to the need to center justice in their work. Throughout the 2016 to 2023 study of Undivided, I was involved in similar program in a different church and a different city. This story of Undivided is a largely positive one, but In 2021 I left my church after having lost faith that there could be change there.
There are a variety of reasons which I have mostly detailed in other places, but one aspect which I do not think got enough attention in Undivided, although it did get some, is that the megachurch model I think is inherently flawed. Even if I had full confidence in the leadership of my former church, I have come to believe that two aspects of the megachurch mean that I will never be satisfied. One, the megachurch model has been influenced by the Homogenous Unit Principle (HUP) of the church growth movement. Han mentions this in Undivided, but just in passing. The HUP was developed in a missionary context of India and then was brought back to the US and became part of a church planting and church growth movement in the 1970 to early 2000s. HUP suggests that the way to attract people to the church is to narrowly target a small demographic and cultural segment to meet the needs and attract just that group through culturally specific evangelism. A second aspect to the growth of the megachurch is not just HUP, but also targeting programming toward people who were not familiar with or uninterested in traditional church. My old church used to have the tag line, “A church for the unchurched.”
These two aspect matter to why predominately white evangelical megachurches are so bad at racial issues. The very DNA of most megachurches is a narrowly targeted cultural group. Willow Creek popularized Unchurched Harry and Mary as their target demographic and then proceeded to teach other churches to do the same. Part of my work in the late 1990s was working for a local association of churches and doing demographic reports for churches and church plants who were trying to find the narrow group they should be targeting in order to quickly grow. Once churches have this in their DNA, and then they prioritize being a comfortable place to go to church, avoidance of discomfort becomes the priority of the local church. A church that prioritizes avoidance of discomfort and who has a narrow cultural demographic as the base of its congregation, cannot address an inherently uncomfortable topic like race, which is not salient to most of the members because those members have been attracted because it is monocultural.
Again, it is mentioned, but the added layer to the problem is the increasing role of Christian Nationalism which has been empowered by the increasing reliance of fear of the other by the religious right. There have been whole books about the relationship of Christian nationalism to the rise of the religious right and how race is inherently tied into the very concept of Christian nationalism and to a lesser extent the development of the white evangelical movement. Books like Bad Faith by Randall Balmer and Religion of Whiteness by Emerson and Bracey approach the history and sociology of race within the evangelical church world.
The real draw to the book Undivided is how much the writing is centered on the characters. The reader learns about the program and about the issues of race within the evangelical world as the characters come to understand themselves and one another through the program and their relationships with others. These are not simply stories. As I hinted above in introducing the characters, each of them had significant changes in their life as a result of their connection to the program and one another. In many ways those changes were positive, but not all of them were. Undivided is in part about the cost that it takes to address race in a system that discourages the directness.
One of the difficulties of discussing race or economics or other topics that are “just in the water” is that language is difficult. For instance, Han occasionally uses the word “Whiteness” to describe the cultural belief in a system of racialization and hierarchy. Some readers view “whiteness” as meaning “all white people,” but the sociological definition does not mean all white people. Jonathan Waltonlikes to use the phrase “White American Folk Religion” instead of Christian Nationalism even if they have overlapping meanings because he wants to use language that is less fraught. The two different approaches of using whiteness to specifically name a problem with a name that can be misunderstood, or using a name like "White American Folk Religion" which needs to be defined but has less initial baggage is a topic that repeatedly comes up in Undivided. Studying the culture, something that people don't directly talk about because it is assumed to be understood, is necessary in a pluralistic world where people do not necessarily mean the same thing when using the same language.
The idea of ethnography centers the experience of the focus characters both as particular people, but also models who stand in for larger groups. The pastor, Chuck, grew up in the Black church and intially left Crossroads because of frustration over racial issues. But he came back and was hired and the social capital he earned through long term relationship with the church leadership allowed him some leeway to press in on difficult issues. But the tension on maintaining those relationships means that he was always wondering if he was not pushing enough or was pushing too much and if he was self censoring so that he could maintain relationship. Grant was a young white man who thought he knew it all because he had a black friend and a black brother. As he explored racial issues and the way that race played a role within his work at the Department of Corrections he became an activist. He started a prison ministry group at the church. And he work in his role as a social media manager to profile inmates through podcast interview and written profiles. But eventually he left the Department of Corrections because of backlash against his activism. Becoming a church staff members who continued his activism around racial issues there.
Sandra was a Black woman who was married to a white man. She grew up being taught by her father to not trust white people. After an early divorce and a young child, she was brought back to faith through Crossroads church. She eventually remarried a white man and had three additional children. Again, the book skillfully tells the story of how racial identity matters not just to white racism, but also the racial identity of those who are not black. It takes years and many small steps, but he comes to find her voice and understand how gender and race both play a role in her marriage struggles.
Jess is the youngest character in the book. She grew up in a family that was overt white supremacist, her father (who died when she was 11) had "White Power" and other similar tattoos and her uncle had a swastika tattooed on his chest while in prison. Jess also spent time in prison after a felony conviction and a serious drug addiction. While in prison she became a Christian and upon release she found Crossroads, regained custody of her son, and was just getting settled when she started participating in Undivided. She eventually completed college and becomes a social worker and presses back against the racism of her family and the systems she works and lives in.
It is very clear in Undivided that struggle is central to growth. The point is growth, not a particular destination. Even as the book is very clear about the struggle I think it may be too positively framed. The backlash, which is clearly the focus of the second half of the book I think is stronger than what just what is talked about. The book was published in September, 2024, which means it was largely finished in 2023 and written about events that were mostly 2022 or before. The reelection of Trump, the continuing overt Christian nationalism within the christian community and the backlash against DEI, immigration, and other topics I do not think have reached their zenith yet.
One of the strengths of Undivided is that Hahrie Han is not an evangelical insider. She is coming at the story with a different lens and different assumptions. But her not being an insider means that there are a lot of minor issues which I see as an insider. Some are minor fact problems like identifying Charlie Dates as the pastor of Progressive Baptist Church of Chicago starting in 2023. He actually became pastor of Progressive Baptist in 2011, but in 2023 also became senior pastor of Salem Baptist, jointly pastoring two different churches. The unusualness of the situation can be a part of why the detail was wrong. But there were a dozen or so similar minor errors that I think show a lack of evangelical editorial input. She also had some framing issues with describing people as "in the faith" in a way that felt very unevangelical. When she talks about Bebbington's evangelical quadrilateral and the National Evangelical Association, she incorrectly identifies them as nondenominational.
I think some of the lack of detail in the backlash section also is attributable to her outsider status. While she details the 2018 Wheaton meeting, she doesn't detail the 2018 MLK 50 or the 2018 T4G meeting which were both very much concerned with race in the Evangelical world. MLK 50 was jointly sponsored by the Southern Baptist ELRC and The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and is arguably part of the impetus of the national anti CRT movement. MLK 50 is regularly cited as evidence of those very conservative evangelical organization being "woke". TGC in 2019 published The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity, which directly identified the language being used in antiracism programs like MLK 50 or Undivided as being incompatible with Christianity. That eventually morphed into opposition to Critical Race Theory and the SBC's resolution about CRT and SBC seminary presidents unequivocally opposing CRT.That anti CRT eventually spread to school and political world with Trump's anti CRT statement in the fall of 2020. Part of the reality of the problem of race and Trump is that those who are opposing Trump and those who are trying to address race often, but not necessarily overlap.
As detailed more in the discussion on the Holy Post than in the book, many who were willing to speak out about racial issues are no longer willing or able to speak out because of the identification of discussion of race with political issues. One of the issues that led to my leaving from my church was the church's unwillingness to simply say that Marjorie Taylor Greene was not an active attender of the church. She was baptized in 2011, but according to staff who I have talked to, there is no evidence that she had any church involvement after 2013. In 2020, when she ran for congress she identified the church as her church and that she was involved in small group ministry there. The church was at the same time trying to address racial issues through small group and larger groups not unlike Undivided. In direct conversations with leaders at the church I told them that they could not be taken seriously as addressing race while avoiding other discussions trying not to offend. The problem is not conservative members of the church who are republicans, but the rhetoric being used.
I think Undivided made the very good point that to help people changes over time requires relationship. And that withdrawing from relationship precludes the ability to speak into people's lives. Undivided talks about how Jess' continued involvement with her uncle led to him having his swastika tattoo removed. And that she was able to discuss the problems of race within policing with officers who she regularly worked with in her role as a social worker. But the book also talks about how eventually Sandra and her husband divorced in part because of issues of race and his attraction to Christian Nationalism and how that impacted their relationship. There just are not simple solutions and what works in one case will not work in another.
What is helpful about Undivided, the book, is that is shows how slow on-going change through relationship matters. It also show why the context of a program matters as much as the program. It was not the six weeks as much as the context of putting people in settings where they can both build relationship and workout the ideas and context of what they were learning in settings where that matters. But the systems of white evangelicals and megachurches are not long term conducive toward addressing either race or broader justice issues. Isaac Sharp's The Other Evangelicals is in part about how choices have been made and are hard to unmake.
I do have some issues with some of the framing and there are some things that are mistakes more than framing problems. But I do think this is a very helpful book that I want to recommend to be read widely.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/undivided/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: An ethnographic study of an antiracism program in a Cincinnati evangelical megachurch.
Undivided was not a book on my radar. I had not planned on listening to the Holy Post Podcast which interviewed the author Hahrie Han. But then I got an email about a bonus segment which discussed the 2018 meeting at Wheaton College about what to do in response to Trump. I was well aware of that meeting and listened to that segment and then went back and listened to the whole podcast. If you are interested in just the interview, you can watch the YouTube video and skip to the 54 minute mark to get to the start of the interview.
Undivided in an ethnographic study of an antiracist training program in an evangelical megachurch. Hahrie Han became aware of it because of its involvement in passing a ballot initiative to provide free preK to Cincinnati students. She was told that the ballot initative was heavily influenced by a local megachurch. As she investigated she became intrigued because most DEI programs are not particularly effective at changing long term behavior. Han embedded herself in the church for nearly seven years to understand how the church and the program, which was eventually spun off to its organization, worked and what made it effective. Eventually the book discusses how it responded to the backlash to the program and the larger cultural backlash to antiracism programs within the US culture.
Undivided by Hahrie Han predominately traces four people while exploring the Undivided antiracism training program at Crossroads Church in Cincinnati. Han’s skill as a writer and researcher is evident throughout the book. Her four central characters are a Black male pastor (Chuck Mingo) who was the public face of the program. A white male participate in the initial program (Grant) who at the time worked for the Ohio Department of Corrections, eventually leading their social media team. Grant came to understand how much he didn’t understand about race, despite working in a racially diverse setting and having an adopted brother who was black. The third and fourth character are a Black woman (Sandra, a pseudonym) and a white woman (Jess). Undivided tells the story of these four characters of time and how they were changed by the program and by their relationships with one another. It is in large part the stickiness of the relationships with brought about the change within the characters.
I am a big fan of good ethnographic studies. Good ethnographic studies follow a group of individuals over a fairly long period of time to understand a context deeply. One of the best ethnographies I have read was Gang Leader for a Day, where a sociologist embedded himself in a Chicago housing project and local gang for years to understand how the culture and pressures of living in public housing and being within a gang worked. I was turned onto the model of ethnographic study after reading Slim's Table: Race, Respectability, and Masculinity
by Mitchell Duneier. I think I picked it up in the late 90s (it was published in ‘92) in part because I lived about two blocks from the restaurant at the center of that ethnography. Ethnography is inherently controversial because the act of embedding yourself into a community well enough to be able to report on the community impacts not just the community being studied (the observer effect) but also the researchers themselves are often changed because of the long term impact of the relationships. (At the end of the book, Hahrie Han say that her work with Undivided program and the people profiled and Crossroads church where the program was set drew her back to faith.)
I do not think I am an average reader for Undivided. I both have a good background in reading various ethnographies, but I am deeply invested in antiracism work in the evangelical world. I was interested in the book because I was well aware of a small meeting of Evangelical leaders which happened to be meeting at my Alma Mater, Wheaton College. Until recently I spent 15 years as a member of a different megachurch where I strongly advocated for racial awareness programs and called on the church to be more attuned to the need to center justice in their work. Throughout the 2016 to 2023 study of Undivided, I was involved in similar program in a different church and a different city. This story of Undivided is a largely positive one, but In 2021 I left my church after having lost faith that there could be change there.
There are a variety of reasons which I have mostly detailed in other places, but one aspect which I do not think got enough attention in Undivided, although it did get some, is that the megachurch model I think is inherently flawed. Even if I had full confidence in the leadership of my former church, I have come to believe that two aspects of the megachurch mean that I will never be satisfied. One, the megachurch model has been influenced by the Homogenous Unit Principle (HUP) of the church growth movement. Han mentions this in Undivided, but just in passing. The HUP was developed in a missionary context of India and then was brought back to the US and became part of a church planting and church growth movement in the 1970 to early 2000s. HUP suggests that the way to attract people to the church is to narrowly target a small demographic and cultural segment to meet the needs and attract just that group through culturally specific evangelism. A second aspect to the growth of the megachurch is not just HUP, but also targeting programming toward people who were not familiar with or uninterested in traditional church. My old church used to have the tag line, “A church for the unchurched.”
These two aspect matter to why predominately white evangelical megachurches are so bad at racial issues. The very DNA of most megachurches is a narrowly targeted cultural group. Willow Creek popularized Unchurched Harry and Mary as their target demographic and then proceeded to teach other churches to do the same. Part of my work in the late 1990s was working for a local association of churches and doing demographic reports for churches and church plants who were trying to find the narrow group they should be targeting in order to quickly grow. Once churches have this in their DNA, and then they prioritize being a comfortable place to go to church, avoidance of discomfort becomes the priority of the local church. A church that prioritizes avoidance of discomfort and who has a narrow cultural demographic as the base of its congregation, cannot address an inherently uncomfortable topic like race, which is not salient to most of the members because those members have been attracted because it is monocultural.
Again, it is mentioned, but the added layer to the problem is the increasing role of Christian Nationalism which has been empowered by the increasing reliance of fear of the other by the religious right. There have been whole books about the relationship of Christian nationalism to the rise of the religious right and how race is inherently tied into the very concept of Christian nationalism and to a lesser extent the development of the white evangelical movement. Books like Bad Faith by Randall Balmer and Religion of Whiteness by Emerson and Bracey approach the history and sociology of race within the evangelical church world.
The real draw to the book Undivided is how much the writing is centered on the characters. The reader learns about the program and about the issues of race within the evangelical world as the characters come to understand themselves and one another through the program and their relationships with others. These are not simply stories. As I hinted above in introducing the characters, each of them had significant changes in their life as a result of their connection to the program and one another. In many ways those changes were positive, but not all of them were. Undivided is in part about the cost that it takes to address race in a system that discourages the directness.
One of the difficulties of discussing race or economics or other topics that are “just in the water” is that language is difficult. For instance, Han occasionally uses the word “Whiteness” to describe the cultural belief in a system of racialization and hierarchy. Some readers view “whiteness” as meaning “all white people,” but the sociological definition does not mean all white people. Jonathan Waltonlikes to use the phrase “White American Folk Religion” instead of Christian Nationalism even if they have overlapping meanings because he wants to use language that is less fraught. The two different approaches of using whiteness to specifically name a problem with a name that can be misunderstood, or using a name like "White American Folk Religion" which needs to be defined but has less initial baggage is a topic that repeatedly comes up in Undivided. Studying the culture, something that people don't directly talk about because it is assumed to be understood, is necessary in a pluralistic world where people do not necessarily mean the same thing when using the same language.
The idea of ethnography centers the experience of the focus characters both as particular people, but also models who stand in for larger groups. The pastor, Chuck, grew up in the Black church and intially left Crossroads because of frustration over racial issues. But he came back and was hired and the social capital he earned through long term relationship with the church leadership allowed him some leeway to press in on difficult issues. But the tension on maintaining those relationships means that he was always wondering if he was not pushing enough or was pushing too much and if he was self censoring so that he could maintain relationship. Grant was a young white man who thought he knew it all because he had a black friend and a black brother. As he explored racial issues and the way that race played a role within his work at the Department of Corrections he became an activist. He started a prison ministry group at the church. And he work in his role as a social media manager to profile inmates through podcast interview and written profiles. But eventually he left the Department of Corrections because of backlash against his activism. Becoming a church staff members who continued his activism around racial issues there.
Sandra was a Black woman who was married to a white man. She grew up being taught by her father to not trust white people. After an early divorce and a young child, she was brought back to faith through Crossroads church. She eventually remarried a white man and had three additional children. Again, the book skillfully tells the story of how racial identity matters not just to white racism, but also the racial identity of those who are not black. It takes years and many small steps, but he comes to find her voice and understand how gender and race both play a role in her marriage struggles.
Jess is the youngest character in the book. She grew up in a family that was overt white supremacist, her father (who died when she was 11) had "White Power" and other similar tattoos and her uncle had a swastika tattooed on his chest while in prison. Jess also spent time in prison after a felony conviction and a serious drug addiction. While in prison she became a Christian and upon release she found Crossroads, regained custody of her son, and was just getting settled when she started participating in Undivided. She eventually completed college and becomes a social worker and presses back against the racism of her family and the systems she works and lives in.
It is very clear in Undivided that struggle is central to growth. The point is growth, not a particular destination. Even as the book is very clear about the struggle I think it may be too positively framed. The backlash, which is clearly the focus of the second half of the book I think is stronger than what just what is talked about. The book was published in September, 2024, which means it was largely finished in 2023 and written about events that were mostly 2022 or before. The reelection of Trump, the continuing overt Christian nationalism within the christian community and the backlash against DEI, immigration, and other topics I do not think have reached their zenith yet.
One of the strengths of Undivided is that Hahrie Han is not an evangelical insider. She is coming at the story with a different lens and different assumptions. But her not being an insider means that there are a lot of minor issues which I see as an insider. Some are minor fact problems like identifying Charlie Dates as the pastor of Progressive Baptist Church of Chicago starting in 2023. He actually became pastor of Progressive Baptist in 2011, but in 2023 also became senior pastor of Salem Baptist, jointly pastoring two different churches. The unusualness of the situation can be a part of why the detail was wrong. But there were a dozen or so similar minor errors that I think show a lack of evangelical editorial input. She also had some framing issues with describing people as "in the faith" in a way that felt very unevangelical. When she talks about Bebbington's evangelical quadrilateral and the National Evangelical Association, she incorrectly identifies them as nondenominational.
I think some of the lack of detail in the backlash section also is attributable to her outsider status. While she details the 2018 Wheaton meeting, she doesn't detail the 2018 MLK 50 or the 2018 T4G meeting which were both very much concerned with race in the Evangelical world. MLK 50 was jointly sponsored by the Southern Baptist ELRC and The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and is arguably part of the impetus of the national anti CRT movement. MLK 50 is regularly cited as evidence of those very conservative evangelical organization being "woke". TGC in 2019 published The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity, which directly identified the language being used in antiracism programs like MLK 50 or Undivided as being incompatible with Christianity. That eventually morphed into opposition to Critical Race Theory and the SBC's resolution about CRT and SBC seminary presidents unequivocally opposing CRT.That anti CRT eventually spread to school and political world with Trump's anti CRT statement in the fall of 2020. Part of the reality of the problem of race and Trump is that those who are opposing Trump and those who are trying to address race often, but not necessarily overlap.
As detailed more in the discussion on the Holy Post than in the book, many who were willing to speak out about racial issues are no longer willing or able to speak out because of the identification of discussion of race with political issues. One of the issues that led to my leaving from my church was the church's unwillingness to simply say that Marjorie Taylor Greene was not an active attender of the church. She was baptized in 2011, but according to staff who I have talked to, there is no evidence that she had any church involvement after 2013. In 2020, when she ran for congress she identified the church as her church and that she was involved in small group ministry there. The church was at the same time trying to address racial issues through small group and larger groups not unlike Undivided. In direct conversations with leaders at the church I told them that they could not be taken seriously as addressing race while avoiding other discussions trying not to offend. The problem is not conservative members of the church who are republicans, but the rhetoric being used.
I think Undivided made the very good point that to help people changes over time requires relationship. And that withdrawing from relationship precludes the ability to speak into people's lives. Undivided talks about how Jess' continued involvement with her uncle led to him having his swastika tattoo removed. And that she was able to discuss the problems of race within policing with officers who she regularly worked with in her role as a social worker. But the book also talks about how eventually Sandra and her husband divorced in part because of issues of race and his attraction to Christian Nationalism and how that impacted their relationship. There just are not simple solutions and what works in one case will not work in another.
What is helpful about Undivided, the book, is that is shows how slow on-going change through relationship matters. It also show why the context of a program matters as much as the program. It was not the six weeks as much as the context of putting people in settings where they can both build relationship and workout the ideas and context of what they were learning in settings where that matters. But the systems of white evangelicals and megachurches are not long term conducive toward addressing either race or broader justice issues. Isaac Sharp's The Other Evangelicals is in part about how choices have been made and are hard to unmake.
I do have some issues with some of the framing and there are some things that are mistakes more than framing problems. But I do think this is a very helpful book that I want to recommend to be read widely.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/undivided/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A broad overview of the history of Black Christianity, with a second volume that is a collection of writing from Black Christianity.
Black Christianity in the United States is unquestionably tied to the (racial) history of the United States. That is a very basic statement but I think it is a good place to start when thinking about Walter Strickland’s new history of Black Christianity, Swing Low. Certainly good histories are contextually aware of the broader history while telling a narrower story. But it is not really possible to tell the story of Black Christianity without grappling with the racial history of the US because Black Christians in the US have always been subjected to that history.
I grappled with how to write that last line, because “subjected to” is a passive framing, and the Black Church has been anything but passive. At the same time, another incorrect framing would be to suggest that anti-Black racism in the US is a “Black problem”. James Baldwin was asked by Dick Cavett a variety of questions about that the “Black problem” in the United States. Baldwin answered Cavett’s questions about hope and frustration, but Baldwin also reframed the question to center racism as not a Black problem but a White problem. The problem of racism is not about the subject of the discrimination but the ones doing the discrimination. Part of what Strickland is doing in Swing Low is to show how Black Christians responded to racism by forming their own institutions and communities and theological beliefs and practices, but also that not everything in the Black church is a response to racism.
I have read several histories of the Black Church, most recently Anthony Pinn’s Black Church History, Henry Louis Gates’ companion book to his documentary This is Our Story, This is Our Song, Isaiah Robinson’s Black Church Empowered and Raphael Warnock’s The Divided Mind of the Black Church. These are four different approaches to telling the story of the black church. Of those four books Swing Low is most similar to Isaiah Robinson’s Black Church Empowered. Strickland is an academics historian and theologian, while Isaiah Robinson is a local church pastor. But they are telling the story as Black churchmen.
Esau McCaulley in Reading While Black talks about (and expands in a number of interviews later) the difficulty of who gets to tell the story of the Black church. Generally, the academy has prioritized Black Liberation theologians in the more liberal academic world. And those few Black professors in the predominately White Evangelical seminaries are similarly narrow. McCaulley suggests that the third group, the Black church pastors and preacher (like Isaiah Robinson) are rarely invited to the academy. Swing Low I think oriented toward that third group. Strickland is a professor at Southeastern Baptist Seminary, one of only a handful of Black professors at SBC seminaries. But the story here is framed to center the middle of the Black church and prioritizes theological orthodoxy in his five pillars of the Black church. Claude Acho details those five pillars in his review, so I won’t detail them here.
The last pillar is deliverance or liberation. And it is exactly in that last pillar that much of the controversy rests. Warnock suggests that Black theology must center liberation and the parts of the Black church which do not prioritize all forms of liberation are rejecting Black theology. Strickland is less polemical and more descriptive in his approach. The final five chapters of the book are split between telling the story of Black Evangelicals and Black Liberation Theology since the 1950-60s. As McCaulley talks about in Reading While Black, there has been a choice on whether to pursue higher education in more liberal schools where liberal and liberation theology is centered, which is often contrary to Black church orthodoxy or going to predominately white conservative seminaries that tend to be more conservative and orthodox, but are often more overtly opposed to the black church. That racism within the white evangelical world, one which has tended to spiritualize and individualize liberation has created significant frustration as well as organizations like the National Black Evangelical Association and The Witness.
The liberation theology side of the story starts with James Cone and J Deotis Roberts among others in the first generation and then continues with the following generations of womanist theologians and the second and third generation of liberation theologians. It is clear that Strickland places himself and most Black Christians in the Black Evangelical camp, but I do think he is pretty fair in his presentation of the liberation theology side. There are weaknesses every approach to theology and I think that Strickland is trying to present those weaknesses while maintaining his evangelical convictions. Strickland was called to be fired just for talking about Cone in his seminary classes when it was mentioned in a NYT article in 2019. The calls for his firing are a good example of the problems of staying in predominately white seminaries as a Black Evangelicals that he details in the three chapters on Black evangelicalism. But Strickland is also pointing out that there are many areas where liberation theology strays from his conception of orthodoxy, not just in the embrace of sexual minorities as Warnock details, but in what Christ did on the cross and the role of suffering among other areas.
Part of what I appreciate about this project is the second volume which I have not picked up yet. That second volume is a collection of writings from the whole history and tradition of Black Christianity in the US. I have previously read significant parts of Plain Theology for Plain People by Charles Octavius Boothe, which Strickland wrote a new introduction to and republished. Reclaiming older works by Black Christians in the US is part of the work of reclaiming the black church’s role in US Christianity. Swing Low is a project not just about telling the history of the black church, but also about recovering the voices of the Black church for a new audience so that they can tell their own story.
(links work on my blog where this was originally posted at https://bookwi.se/swing-low/ )
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: A broad overview of the history of Black Christianity, with a second volume that is a collection of writing from Black Christianity.
Black Christianity in the United States is unquestionably tied to the (racial) history of the United States. That is a very basic statement but I think it is a good place to start when thinking about Walter Strickland’s new history of Black Christianity, Swing Low. Certainly good histories are contextually aware of the broader history while telling a narrower story. But it is not really possible to tell the story of Black Christianity without grappling with the racial history of the US because Black Christians in the US have always been subjected to that history.
I grappled with how to write that last line, because “subjected to” is a passive framing, and the Black Church has been anything but passive. At the same time, another incorrect framing would be to suggest that anti-Black racism in the US is a “Black problem”. James Baldwin was asked by Dick Cavett a variety of questions about that the “Black problem” in the United States. Baldwin answered Cavett’s questions about hope and frustration, but Baldwin also reframed the question to center racism as not a Black problem but a White problem. The problem of racism is not about the subject of the discrimination but the ones doing the discrimination. Part of what Strickland is doing in Swing Low is to show how Black Christians responded to racism by forming their own institutions and communities and theological beliefs and practices, but also that not everything in the Black church is a response to racism.
I have read several histories of the Black Church, most recently Anthony Pinn’s Black Church History, Henry Louis Gates’ companion book to his documentary This is Our Story, This is Our Song, Isaiah Robinson’s Black Church Empowered and Raphael Warnock’s The Divided Mind of the Black Church. These are four different approaches to telling the story of the black church. Of those four books Swing Low is most similar to Isaiah Robinson’s Black Church Empowered. Strickland is an academics historian and theologian, while Isaiah Robinson is a local church pastor. But they are telling the story as Black churchmen.
Esau McCaulley in Reading While Black talks about (and expands in a number of interviews later) the difficulty of who gets to tell the story of the Black church. Generally, the academy has prioritized Black Liberation theologians in the more liberal academic world. And those few Black professors in the predominately White Evangelical seminaries are similarly narrow. McCaulley suggests that the third group, the Black church pastors and preacher (like Isaiah Robinson) are rarely invited to the academy. Swing Low I think oriented toward that third group. Strickland is a professor at Southeastern Baptist Seminary, one of only a handful of Black professors at SBC seminaries. But the story here is framed to center the middle of the Black church and prioritizes theological orthodoxy in his five pillars of the Black church. Claude Acho details those five pillars in his review, so I won’t detail them here.
The last pillar is deliverance or liberation. And it is exactly in that last pillar that much of the controversy rests. Warnock suggests that Black theology must center liberation and the parts of the Black church which do not prioritize all forms of liberation are rejecting Black theology. Strickland is less polemical and more descriptive in his approach. The final five chapters of the book are split between telling the story of Black Evangelicals and Black Liberation Theology since the 1950-60s. As McCaulley talks about in Reading While Black, there has been a choice on whether to pursue higher education in more liberal schools where liberal and liberation theology is centered, which is often contrary to Black church orthodoxy or going to predominately white conservative seminaries that tend to be more conservative and orthodox, but are often more overtly opposed to the black church. That racism within the white evangelical world, one which has tended to spiritualize and individualize liberation has created significant frustration as well as organizations like the National Black Evangelical Association and The Witness.
The liberation theology side of the story starts with James Cone and J Deotis Roberts among others in the first generation and then continues with the following generations of womanist theologians and the second and third generation of liberation theologians. It is clear that Strickland places himself and most Black Christians in the Black Evangelical camp, but I do think he is pretty fair in his presentation of the liberation theology side. There are weaknesses every approach to theology and I think that Strickland is trying to present those weaknesses while maintaining his evangelical convictions. Strickland was called to be fired just for talking about Cone in his seminary classes when it was mentioned in a NYT article in 2019. The calls for his firing are a good example of the problems of staying in predominately white seminaries as a Black Evangelicals that he details in the three chapters on Black evangelicalism. But Strickland is also pointing out that there are many areas where liberation theology strays from his conception of orthodoxy, not just in the embrace of sexual minorities as Warnock details, but in what Christ did on the cross and the role of suffering among other areas.
Part of what I appreciate about this project is the second volume which I have not picked up yet. That second volume is a collection of writings from the whole history and tradition of Black Christianity in the US. I have previously read significant parts of Plain Theology for Plain People by Charles Octavius Boothe, which Strickland wrote a new introduction to and republished. Reclaiming older works by Black Christians in the US is part of the work of reclaiming the black church’s role in US Christianity. Swing Low is a project not just about telling the history of the black church, but also about recovering the voices of the Black church for a new audience so that they can tell their own story.
(links work on my blog where this was originally posted at https://bookwi.se/swing-low/ )
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: An overview of the book of Acts, paying particular attention to the temple and how the early church integrated gentiles into it while maintaining integration with its Jewish background.
I may not have picked up The Challenge of Acts if I had not watched the last 15 minutes of an episode of the Holy Postwhere Skye Jehani was interviewing NT Wright about The Challenge of Acts. Skye asked about what NT Wright would say in response to churches who pragmatically say that you should narrow-cast to a narrow cultural group and not seek to be more inclusive because churches grow more quickly that way. (This has been the argument from the church growth movement who advocated for the Homogenous Unit Principle, which I have written about before here.)
NT Wright suggests in that video that part of the message of Acts is that the church is not really the church if it isn't grappling with the integration of the entire body of Christ. To narrow cast to a homogeneous cultural group is to distort the idea of the church so much that it ceases to be the church.
Other commentaries on Acts like Amos Yong's have suggested that much of the action of the book of Acts is the expansion of the church to a larger and larger group of people and each expansion had a sense of conflict that had to be dealt with. And Willie James Jenning's commentary on Acts spent a lot of time grappling with the role of empire, violence and prison.
NT Wright has several main points he is communicating with his book on Acts. First, he raises attention to temple motifs in Acts. That attention to temple motifs is part of what Wright's larger project with the New Perspectives on Paul movement is doing in trying to pay attention to Paul's Jewishness and not make Paul into an antisemite as some commenters on Paul have done historically. Wright instead suggests that Paul is trying to integrate Jew and gentile into the body of Christ, not as s replacement of the Jewish religious practice (supersessionism) but as an integrated reality.
Something I have not heard before that I do think is an interesting point is that Wright is suggesting that part of why Paul is seen in Acts as going first to Jewish synagogues is that he is trying to appropriate the Roman exception to communal idol worship that Jewish people had to Christians. Generally all people who were under the subjection of Rome had to come together to offer sacrifices together to appease the gods. Jews had been given an exception to that requirement. Wright suggests that Paul was trying to use that exemption, but he wanted to use it in a way that violated Jewish self-understanding.
Paul says that the gentile Christians did not need to be circumcised. If Paul had asked gentile Christians to be circumcised then it would have been easy to say to Roman officials that these gentile Christians were Jewish coverts and therefore not subject to Roman idol worship requirements. But Paul wanted to claim the exception while not making the gentile Christians live under full Jewish religious requirements. That both endangered Jewish exemptions from Roman law, and didn't given enough attachment for the gentile Christians to make them recognizably Jewish. This framing makes a lot of sense of the way Luke structures Acts' storytelling.
The Challenge of Acts was based on a series of lectures in 2022. The last book I read by NT Wright was Into the Heart of Romans, which was a whole book focused on a single chapter of Romans. The Challenge of Acts is the opposite approach, it is a broad overview of a whole book of the Bible, drawing connections to both Old Testament references, New Testament self understanding and the second temple culture of the era. Generally, Wright is taking about four chapters of Acts at a time. He gives quick overview of how Luke is structuring the story in the section and then highlights several points more thoroughly before moving on to the next section.
There are a couple of exceptions to this general approach. The introduction of the book of Acts takes a little more time as you might expect. And then Wright spends a whole chapter on Paul's sermon in Athens at the Areopagus. Wright suggests that this sermon has largely been misunderstood because it has been presented as if the Areopagus was a debating society and not a trial. Where Wright is often very helpful is drawing cultural connections that the average reader would not see, but the original readers would have assumed were clear. In this case, Luke seems to be referencing Socrates. Both Paul and Socrates were on trial for sacrilege or impiety. This is a connection that I have never heard before, but makes a lot of sense to the text. Paul was not simply using the altar to the unknown God as a way to build a bridge between them, but as a defense to show that Paul was not an atheist or impious person.
Much of the focus on The Challenge of Acts is on Paul as you might expect from a scholar who has specialized in Pauline studies. Wright suggests that the book of Acts may have been written as part of Paul's defense in Rome, which may be part of the reason that there are so many court scenes in it. Even before Paul, Peter and the other disciples were brought before officials to get them to stop preaching. And while John and Stephen were put to death, those deaths are shown as unjust punishments. The other courts scenes were largely showing that the officials did not find the early church guilty of sedition or impiety, even if the people continue to misunderstand them and kept bringing them before the local officials and courts.
Like pretty much all of Wright's books, this is one that I listened to on first pass. (And unusually, Wright narrates the audiobook himself.) I tend to pick up the print version later and take a slower second pass. I have read well over a dozen of Wright's books, many of them two or three times. Wright's strength and weakness is that he keeps coming back to similar themes over and over again. Part of the strength here is that in discussing Acts, he moves outside of his main areas of work on the Pauline letters and shows how the implications of his work in Paul matters to other aspects of New Testament study. The weakness is that some of these themes have been well covered in other books. But I think that is less of a problem here than in some other books because while there are overlapping themes here with Wright's other books, the setting of the book of Acts and the method of a quicker overview of an entire book, brings a lot of new insight into why Wright's traditional themes of study matter in new ways.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-challenge-of-acts/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
Summary: An overview of the book of Acts, paying particular attention to the temple and how the early church integrated gentiles into it while maintaining integration with its Jewish background.
I may not have picked up The Challenge of Acts if I had not watched the last 15 minutes of an episode of the Holy Postwhere Skye Jehani was interviewing NT Wright about The Challenge of Acts. Skye asked about what NT Wright would say in response to churches who pragmatically say that you should narrow-cast to a narrow cultural group and not seek to be more inclusive because churches grow more quickly that way. (This has been the argument from the church growth movement who advocated for the Homogenous Unit Principle, which I have written about before here.)
NT Wright suggests in that video that part of the message of Acts is that the church is not really the church if it isn't grappling with the integration of the entire body of Christ. To narrow cast to a homogeneous cultural group is to distort the idea of the church so much that it ceases to be the church.
Other commentaries on Acts like Amos Yong's have suggested that much of the action of the book of Acts is the expansion of the church to a larger and larger group of people and each expansion had a sense of conflict that had to be dealt with. And Willie James Jenning's commentary on Acts spent a lot of time grappling with the role of empire, violence and prison.
NT Wright has several main points he is communicating with his book on Acts. First, he raises attention to temple motifs in Acts. That attention to temple motifs is part of what Wright's larger project with the New Perspectives on Paul movement is doing in trying to pay attention to Paul's Jewishness and not make Paul into an antisemite as some commenters on Paul have done historically. Wright instead suggests that Paul is trying to integrate Jew and gentile into the body of Christ, not as s replacement of the Jewish religious practice (supersessionism) but as an integrated reality.
Something I have not heard before that I do think is an interesting point is that Wright is suggesting that part of why Paul is seen in Acts as going first to Jewish synagogues is that he is trying to appropriate the Roman exception to communal idol worship that Jewish people had to Christians. Generally all people who were under the subjection of Rome had to come together to offer sacrifices together to appease the gods. Jews had been given an exception to that requirement. Wright suggests that Paul was trying to use that exemption, but he wanted to use it in a way that violated Jewish self-understanding.
Paul says that the gentile Christians did not need to be circumcised. If Paul had asked gentile Christians to be circumcised then it would have been easy to say to Roman officials that these gentile Christians were Jewish coverts and therefore not subject to Roman idol worship requirements. But Paul wanted to claim the exception while not making the gentile Christians live under full Jewish religious requirements. That both endangered Jewish exemptions from Roman law, and didn't given enough attachment for the gentile Christians to make them recognizably Jewish. This framing makes a lot of sense of the way Luke structures Acts' storytelling.
The Challenge of Acts was based on a series of lectures in 2022. The last book I read by NT Wright was Into the Heart of Romans, which was a whole book focused on a single chapter of Romans. The Challenge of Acts is the opposite approach, it is a broad overview of a whole book of the Bible, drawing connections to both Old Testament references, New Testament self understanding and the second temple culture of the era. Generally, Wright is taking about four chapters of Acts at a time. He gives quick overview of how Luke is structuring the story in the section and then highlights several points more thoroughly before moving on to the next section.
There are a couple of exceptions to this general approach. The introduction of the book of Acts takes a little more time as you might expect. And then Wright spends a whole chapter on Paul's sermon in Athens at the Areopagus. Wright suggests that this sermon has largely been misunderstood because it has been presented as if the Areopagus was a debating society and not a trial. Where Wright is often very helpful is drawing cultural connections that the average reader would not see, but the original readers would have assumed were clear. In this case, Luke seems to be referencing Socrates. Both Paul and Socrates were on trial for sacrilege or impiety. This is a connection that I have never heard before, but makes a lot of sense to the text. Paul was not simply using the altar to the unknown God as a way to build a bridge between them, but as a defense to show that Paul was not an atheist or impious person.
Much of the focus on The Challenge of Acts is on Paul as you might expect from a scholar who has specialized in Pauline studies. Wright suggests that the book of Acts may have been written as part of Paul's defense in Rome, which may be part of the reason that there are so many court scenes in it. Even before Paul, Peter and the other disciples were brought before officials to get them to stop preaching. And while John and Stephen were put to death, those deaths are shown as unjust punishments. The other courts scenes were largely showing that the officials did not find the early church guilty of sedition or impiety, even if the people continue to misunderstand them and kept bringing them before the local officials and courts.
Like pretty much all of Wright's books, this is one that I listened to on first pass. (And unusually, Wright narrates the audiobook himself.) I tend to pick up the print version later and take a slower second pass. I have read well over a dozen of Wright's books, many of them two or three times. Wright's strength and weakness is that he keeps coming back to similar themes over and over again. Part of the strength here is that in discussing Acts, he moves outside of his main areas of work on the Pauline letters and shows how the implications of his work in Paul matters to other aspects of New Testament study. The weakness is that some of these themes have been well covered in other books. But I think that is less of a problem here than in some other books because while there are overlapping themes here with Wright's other books, the setting of the book of Acts and the method of a quicker overview of an entire book, brings a lot of new insight into why Wright's traditional themes of study matter in new ways.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-challenge-of-acts/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
<strong>Summary: An exploration of what could have been had evangelical history gone other ways.</strong>
I have always enjoyed history. But it has mostly been a reading hobby, not something I studied. Over the past decade, I have been more intentional about reading history to fill in gaps in my knowledge, but I have also read more about the study of history. I think it was John Fea’s podcast where I first heard about the 5 Cs of the study of history. Those five Cs are: change over time, causality, context, complexity, and contingency. All five are important to understanding history.
Isaac Sharp’s The Other Evangelicals does approach all five Cs in his exploration of five groups of people who have been marginalized in evangelical history, but in many ways I read this as a book primarily thinking about contingency, the “what could have been” had evangelical history gone other ways.
As with any recent history, my own story influences how I read. I grew up American Baptist. Traditionally American Baptists are considered a mainline denomination and would be included in the “liberal” part of Christianity. I didn’t really understand how liberal the denomination was as I was growing up in part because I was in an evangelical wing of the denomination. I do very much remember going to the only national youth gathering I attended as an American Baptist and one day of the youth conference primarily used feminine references for God. There was no explanation for it and it raised all kinds of questions for other students I was with. I spend a good bit of time that day talking to others about how there were feminine images of God in scripture and how God is not gendered as we traditionally consider gender in humans. I was mostly irritated by the poor presentation, but not at all bothered by the presentation of somewhat liberal theology.
In college I spent a year going to an intentionally interracial church (I only went one year because I didn’t have a car and it was a 35 minute drive into Chicago to go to the church. I never considered going to the Black baptist church that was within walking distance of campus for some reason.) I was aware of the problems of race within evangelicalism during college and explored the development of NBEA and Tom Skinner and John Perkins and other Black leaders within the evangelical world. I was hired to work by the SBC association in Chicago right out of college as I was going to grad school. That association at the time was one of three associations (of about 1200) in the country that was predominately made up of minority churches. I mostly worked with Black churches developing church-based non-profits and spent a lot more time in Black churches, some of whom identified as Evangelical, but most did not.
Part of my grad school was a Masters of Social Service Administration (an administrative focused equivalent to an MSW). I have always been on the progressive side of the evangelical works and have followed the work of Tony Campolo and Ron Sider and others since high school. Social justice and progressive causes were are always a significant focus of my work as a Christian.
It wasn’t until I was in college that I started to understand compmentarianism. The term was only coined a few years before I started college. I knew American Baptists ordained women and that not every evangelical denomination did. But I knew women pastors and just never really considered male only pastorate as a viable option. Another church that I went to for a little while in college was a very conservative church that had a large college contingent. Again, I went in part because I didn’t have a car and friends who did have cars went there. For several months the college ministry Sunday school class studied gender, including why that church was complementarian. I stuck it out through the whole study, but was completely unpersuaded. So I had context for the book in the feminist section as well as the liberal, progressive, and Black evangelicals sections. It was only the history of gay evangelicals that I really had no historical experience with.
One last point, I took two classes with Mark Noll in college and audited another when he was guest lecturer at University of Chicago Divinity School. Noll’s approach to rooting mid 20th century neo-evangelicals as part of a longer tradition of evangelical Protestants was my dominate way of thinking of evangelicalism until fairly recently. <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article/92/1/37/7733057?guestAccessKey=f548926f-1249-4013-b4fd-9f3598c2ae09&login=false&utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=jaar&utm_medium=email">Matthew Avery Sutton’s essay about evangelical historiography</a> gave language to not just my concern about the use and definition of evangelical, but also to the method of thinking about evangelicalism as historically rooted group of people that arose out of the English reformation. I still strongly appreciate Noll, Marsden and other evangelical historians, but I am now going be reading their history with more nuance than I did previously. That is a very long introduction to a fairly straight forward book.
The Other Evangelicals looks at the history of the Evangelical movement that arose in the late 1940s and early 1950s and the ways that his five areas of self-identified evangelicals who were liberal, progressive, Black, feminist and gay. In most of these sections there were fairly clear lines of who was in and who was out regardless of self-identification. In the chapter on liberal evangelicals, the main focus was on biblical studies and the fight over inerrancy. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy was not the first fight to define what an Evangelical understanding of the Bible was, but by the time it was written in the late 1970s, it was clear that there was little tolerance for a more liberal stream of evangelicals who were less concerned with plenary inspiration and an error free bible.
The main illustration in the liberal chapter was Bela Vassady, a Hungarian WWII refugee who was one of the early professors at Fuller Seminary starting in 1949. Vassady was a European who identified as evangelical, but his stream of evangelicalism did not match up with Fuller’s understanding of biblical orthodoxy because he was too sympathetic to Barth and did not reject German methods of biblical theology outright. Vassady had helped to found the World Council of Churches and understood his role to be ecumenical. The story of opposition to Vassady was a good reminder that Christian colleges and seminaries have been accused of being “liberal” for a very long time. The influence of donors concerned about the mission of school and liberal drift has always been present.
The chapter of Black Evangelicals I think was important (although not new by any means) because evangelicals tend to think of themselves as theologically defined. The traditional definitions of evangelical by NAE or Bebbington are rooted in theological statements. But the chapter on Black Evangelicals makes clear that theology was never enough. Billy Graham opposed the methods of the civil rights movement, speaking against the 1963 March on Washington and MLK Jr explicitly on a number of occasions. Sharp quotes Graham, “There is only one possible solution to the race problem and that is vital personal experience with Jesus Christ on the part of both races…any man who has a genuine conversion experience will find his racial attitudes greatly changed.” (p127)
While the chapter on Black evangelicals includes a variety of people, the story is often similar to William Bentley’s. Evangelicalism was a theological tradition that took scripture seriously and at least claimed to value intellectually serious study. Bentley was exposed to white evangelicalism in the 1940s and was attracted to the theology, but was concerned that it “..could be doctrinally correct and, at the same time, hold backward attitudes toward such and important issue as race in America.” Bentley evangelically formed the National Black Evangelical Association in 1963 at a time when Wheaton and many other evangelical schools officially or unofficially still prohibited interracial dating on campus.
Much of the tension beyond explicit racism was rooted in different approaches toward evangelism and ministry. While many members of the NBEA agreed with Graham about the priority of personal conversion as the main method of solving social issues, the Black church historically had been more open to social action as a legitimate role of the church. (Although the National Baptist and the Progressive Baptists split in the 1960s along similar lines.)
The issues raised by Black evangelicals were not confined to just Black evangelicals, white progressives evangelicals also pushed the broader evangelical movement to think more clearly about social action as a role of the church. The 1960s protest movements, racism, war, and poverty were driving forces for progressive evangelicals who championed the working in marginalized communities as a central role of the church. But as the chapter concluded, the requirement for theological conservatism and the social requirement for individualism in approaching social issues like race, meant that progressive evangelicals had an uphill battle to draw attention to social conditions and social ministries that addressed the systemic causes of social problems.
The feminist story of evangelicalism is often assumed to be different than the actual history. The term complementarian wasn’t coined until 1988. While evangelicals were socially and theologically conservative, there were hundreds of women ordained within the SBC in the 1970 and the later orientation toward conservative gender roles was really a backlash to an earlier egalitarian movement.
Again, the concluding chapter on gay evangelicals prioritizes how evangelicals handling of scripture led to the cracks in the approach toward gay evangelicals. In many cases, those who were more inclusive rooted their inclusion on their reading of scripture. There was also a pragmatism that came to the fore as it became clear that changing orientation was not easy.
One of the problems of evangelicalism is a lack of imagination for any other contingency. In many cases, there are and have been many other paths that have been explored, but without knowledge of those paths, it is difficult to not make some of the same mistakes that have already been made.
The Other Evangelicals is very readable history. It is a history that I both knew a lot about but also had details and streams of evangelicalism that I was completely unaware of. I have been skeptical of the label evangelical since the early 90s when I was at Wheaton. The theological definitions of evangelicalism always seem to be less important than the social or cultural identity. The Other Evangelicals was far less political than I thought it would be. The progressive and liberal chapters were more about approach than particular content. And the chapters about feminists and gay evangelicals while they were more about content of those two areas again, came down to largely being about approach.
Evangelicalism grew out of a desire to be less fundamentalist than the early 20th century fundamentalism, but in many ways the evangelical movement never had a full break from fundamentalism. As fundamentalists of the early 20th century became less comfortable self identifying as fundamentalists and increasingly used the term evangelical, the fight over the approach that evangelicalism has toward culture has continued to be largely the same fight.
<strong>The Other Evangelicals: A Story of Liberal, Black, Progressive, Feminist, and Gay Christians―and the Movement That Pushed Them Out by Isaac B Sharp Purchase Links: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Other-Evangelicals-Progressive-Feminist-Christians_and/dp/0802881750/">Paperback</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Other-Evangelicals-Progressive-Feminist-Christians-ebook/dp/B0B831VVZ6/">Kindle Edition</a></strong>
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-other-evangelicals/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.
<strong>Summary: An exploration of what could have been had evangelical history gone other ways.</strong>
I have always enjoyed history. But it has mostly been a reading hobby, not something I studied. Over the past decade, I have been more intentional about reading history to fill in gaps in my knowledge, but I have also read more about the study of history. I think it was John Fea’s podcast where I first heard about the 5 Cs of the study of history. Those five Cs are: change over time, causality, context, complexity, and contingency. All five are important to understanding history.
Isaac Sharp’s The Other Evangelicals does approach all five Cs in his exploration of five groups of people who have been marginalized in evangelical history, but in many ways I read this as a book primarily thinking about contingency, the “what could have been” had evangelical history gone other ways.
As with any recent history, my own story influences how I read. I grew up American Baptist. Traditionally American Baptists are considered a mainline denomination and would be included in the “liberal” part of Christianity. I didn’t really understand how liberal the denomination was as I was growing up in part because I was in an evangelical wing of the denomination. I do very much remember going to the only national youth gathering I attended as an American Baptist and one day of the youth conference primarily used feminine references for God. There was no explanation for it and it raised all kinds of questions for other students I was with. I spend a good bit of time that day talking to others about how there were feminine images of God in scripture and how God is not gendered as we traditionally consider gender in humans. I was mostly irritated by the poor presentation, but not at all bothered by the presentation of somewhat liberal theology.
In college I spent a year going to an intentionally interracial church (I only went one year because I didn’t have a car and it was a 35 minute drive into Chicago to go to the church. I never considered going to the Black baptist church that was within walking distance of campus for some reason.) I was aware of the problems of race within evangelicalism during college and explored the development of NBEA and Tom Skinner and John Perkins and other Black leaders within the evangelical world. I was hired to work by the SBC association in Chicago right out of college as I was going to grad school. That association at the time was one of three associations (of about 1200) in the country that was predominately made up of minority churches. I mostly worked with Black churches developing church-based non-profits and spent a lot more time in Black churches, some of whom identified as Evangelical, but most did not.
Part of my grad school was a Masters of Social Service Administration (an administrative focused equivalent to an MSW). I have always been on the progressive side of the evangelical works and have followed the work of Tony Campolo and Ron Sider and others since high school. Social justice and progressive causes were are always a significant focus of my work as a Christian.
It wasn’t until I was in college that I started to understand compmentarianism. The term was only coined a few years before I started college. I knew American Baptists ordained women and that not every evangelical denomination did. But I knew women pastors and just never really considered male only pastorate as a viable option. Another church that I went to for a little while in college was a very conservative church that had a large college contingent. Again, I went in part because I didn’t have a car and friends who did have cars went there. For several months the college ministry Sunday school class studied gender, including why that church was complementarian. I stuck it out through the whole study, but was completely unpersuaded. So I had context for the book in the feminist section as well as the liberal, progressive, and Black evangelicals sections. It was only the history of gay evangelicals that I really had no historical experience with.
One last point, I took two classes with Mark Noll in college and audited another when he was guest lecturer at University of Chicago Divinity School. Noll’s approach to rooting mid 20th century neo-evangelicals as part of a longer tradition of evangelical Protestants was my dominate way of thinking of evangelicalism until fairly recently. <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article/92/1/37/7733057?guestAccessKey=f548926f-1249-4013-b4fd-9f3598c2ae09&login=false&utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=jaar&utm_medium=email">Matthew Avery Sutton’s essay about evangelical historiography</a> gave language to not just my concern about the use and definition of evangelical, but also to the method of thinking about evangelicalism as historically rooted group of people that arose out of the English reformation. I still strongly appreciate Noll, Marsden and other evangelical historians, but I am now going be reading their history with more nuance than I did previously. That is a very long introduction to a fairly straight forward book.
The Other Evangelicals looks at the history of the Evangelical movement that arose in the late 1940s and early 1950s and the ways that his five areas of self-identified evangelicals who were liberal, progressive, Black, feminist and gay. In most of these sections there were fairly clear lines of who was in and who was out regardless of self-identification. In the chapter on liberal evangelicals, the main focus was on biblical studies and the fight over inerrancy. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy was not the first fight to define what an Evangelical understanding of the Bible was, but by the time it was written in the late 1970s, it was clear that there was little tolerance for a more liberal stream of evangelicals who were less concerned with plenary inspiration and an error free bible.
The main illustration in the liberal chapter was Bela Vassady, a Hungarian WWII refugee who was one of the early professors at Fuller Seminary starting in 1949. Vassady was a European who identified as evangelical, but his stream of evangelicalism did not match up with Fuller’s understanding of biblical orthodoxy because he was too sympathetic to Barth and did not reject German methods of biblical theology outright. Vassady had helped to found the World Council of Churches and understood his role to be ecumenical. The story of opposition to Vassady was a good reminder that Christian colleges and seminaries have been accused of being “liberal” for a very long time. The influence of donors concerned about the mission of school and liberal drift has always been present.
The chapter of Black Evangelicals I think was important (although not new by any means) because evangelicals tend to think of themselves as theologically defined. The traditional definitions of evangelical by NAE or Bebbington are rooted in theological statements. But the chapter on Black Evangelicals makes clear that theology was never enough. Billy Graham opposed the methods of the civil rights movement, speaking against the 1963 March on Washington and MLK Jr explicitly on a number of occasions. Sharp quotes Graham, “There is only one possible solution to the race problem and that is vital personal experience with Jesus Christ on the part of both races…any man who has a genuine conversion experience will find his racial attitudes greatly changed.” (p127)
While the chapter on Black evangelicals includes a variety of people, the story is often similar to William Bentley’s. Evangelicalism was a theological tradition that took scripture seriously and at least claimed to value intellectually serious study. Bentley was exposed to white evangelicalism in the 1940s and was attracted to the theology, but was concerned that it “..could be doctrinally correct and, at the same time, hold backward attitudes toward such and important issue as race in America.” Bentley evangelically formed the National Black Evangelical Association in 1963 at a time when Wheaton and many other evangelical schools officially or unofficially still prohibited interracial dating on campus.
Much of the tension beyond explicit racism was rooted in different approaches toward evangelism and ministry. While many members of the NBEA agreed with Graham about the priority of personal conversion as the main method of solving social issues, the Black church historically had been more open to social action as a legitimate role of the church. (Although the National Baptist and the Progressive Baptists split in the 1960s along similar lines.)
The issues raised by Black evangelicals were not confined to just Black evangelicals, white progressives evangelicals also pushed the broader evangelical movement to think more clearly about social action as a role of the church. The 1960s protest movements, racism, war, and poverty were driving forces for progressive evangelicals who championed the working in marginalized communities as a central role of the church. But as the chapter concluded, the requirement for theological conservatism and the social requirement for individualism in approaching social issues like race, meant that progressive evangelicals had an uphill battle to draw attention to social conditions and social ministries that addressed the systemic causes of social problems.
The feminist story of evangelicalism is often assumed to be different than the actual history. The term complementarian wasn’t coined until 1988. While evangelicals were socially and theologically conservative, there were hundreds of women ordained within the SBC in the 1970 and the later orientation toward conservative gender roles was really a backlash to an earlier egalitarian movement.
Again, the concluding chapter on gay evangelicals prioritizes how evangelicals handling of scripture led to the cracks in the approach toward gay evangelicals. In many cases, those who were more inclusive rooted their inclusion on their reading of scripture. There was also a pragmatism that came to the fore as it became clear that changing orientation was not easy.
One of the problems of evangelicalism is a lack of imagination for any other contingency. In many cases, there are and have been many other paths that have been explored, but without knowledge of those paths, it is difficult to not make some of the same mistakes that have already been made.
The Other Evangelicals is very readable history. It is a history that I both knew a lot about but also had details and streams of evangelicalism that I was completely unaware of. I have been skeptical of the label evangelical since the early 90s when I was at Wheaton. The theological definitions of evangelicalism always seem to be less important than the social or cultural identity. The Other Evangelicals was far less political than I thought it would be. The progressive and liberal chapters were more about approach than particular content. And the chapters about feminists and gay evangelicals while they were more about content of those two areas again, came down to largely being about approach.
Evangelicalism grew out of a desire to be less fundamentalist than the early 20th century fundamentalism, but in many ways the evangelical movement never had a full break from fundamentalism. As fundamentalists of the early 20th century became less comfortable self identifying as fundamentalists and increasingly used the term evangelical, the fight over the approach that evangelicalism has toward culture has continued to be largely the same fight.
<strong>The Other Evangelicals: A Story of Liberal, Black, Progressive, Feminist, and Gay Christians―and the Movement That Pushed Them Out by Isaac B Sharp Purchase Links: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Other-Evangelicals-Progressive-Feminist-Christians_and/dp/0802881750/">Paperback</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Other-Evangelicals-Progressive-Feminist-Christians-ebook/dp/B0B831VVZ6/">Kindle Edition</a></strong>
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-other-evangelicals/
Originally posted at bookwi.se.