Politics & Society
Stealing
Jesus: How the Religious Right Betrays Christianity, Bruce
Bawer
*** “Go to Jesus and Ask”
Who
Really Cares? The Surprising Truth
About Compassionate Conservatism – Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and why it Matters, Arthur Brooks
**** “Bleeding
Heart Conservatives”
Our
Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis, Jimmy Carter
* “Republicans
are Sinners”
Architects
of the Culture of Death, Donald De Marco
**** “Dancing
with Wolves”
Architects
of the Culture of Death, Donald De Marco
**** “Dancing
with Wolves”
American
Fascists: The Religious Right and its War on America, Chris Hedges
* “Why, oh
why, does my flesh creep?”
Ariana
Huffington
“Another
Loud-Mouthed Fanatic”
The
Abolition of Man,
C. S. Lewis
***** “Bio-engineers,
read this book!”
*****
Ten Big Lies About America, Michael Medved
“Effective,
Mostly Accurate, a bit Over-the-Top”
The Hand
of God, Nathanson
***** “Needs
more negative reviews”
Return
to Modesty: Wendy Shalit
**** “Love
Beats Lust, After All”
Jesus
Land: A Memoir,
Julia Scheeres
***** “A
Daisy Cracks the Concrete”
Dreaming
War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, Gore Vidal
** “Paranoia
on a Silver Platter”
Founding
Faith: Providence, Politics, and the birth of Religious Freedom in America , Steven Waldman
***** “Beyond
Propaganda”
Stranger
at the Gate: to be Gay and Christian in America, Mel White
** “Riveting
Story, Doubtful Argument”
Coming
of Age in Samoa,
Margaret Mead
** “Gilligan’s
Island on a Friday Night”
Won by
Love: Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade, Speaks out for the Unborn as
she shares her new conviction for life
***** “Can
I buy the movie rights?”
Kingdom
Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Michelle Goldberg
** “The Sky
is Falling!”
Architects
of the Culture of Death, Donald De Marco
**** “Dancing
with Wolves”
Politics & Society
Stealing
Jesus: How the Religious Right Betrays Christianity, Bruce
Bawer
*** “Go to Jesus and Ask”
Let me begin by laying my cards on the table. I'm a Christian
apologist; my most recent book, The Truth Behind the New Atheism, is a response to the
likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens from an "orthodox"
perspective. I see myself very much in the center of the Christian tradition --
my favorite writers having lived in 2nd Century Alexandria and Greece, 4th
Century Hippo, 17th Century Beijing, 19th Century Russia, and 20th Century
Oxford, and few from the American South. (Apart from Walker Percy.) But
sociologically, I'm "evangelical." I grew up in these churches I've
visited hundreds of "legalistic" (in Bawer's terminology) churches
around the world, and have been welcomed as a speaker in dozens of
denominations.
So I know something about the subject. And like Bawer, I have my biases.
In some ways, "Stealing Jesus" is an excellent book. The author is
intelligent, reflective, and insightful. There's a lot of truth in his critique
. . . though some of it may boomerang back on him. This book is miles ahead of
a more recent best-seller by a New York Times journalist that attempts the same
thing -- Chris Hedges' bathetic and hysterical "American Fascism."
For one thing, Bawer is a much better writer. And the dangers he warns of are
generally more realistic. I get the feeling he takes his "Church of
love" rhetoric seriously, and is really trying to understand those he
derides.
Nevertheless, the book ultimately fails badly. First, what Bawer says of Frank
Perretti (though he should read Peretti's The Visitation, in some ways a
stronger attack on legalism than his own!), ultimately comes back to haunt him:
"It's a world in which everything and everyone divides up readily into two
categories -- black and white, satanic and godly."
Conservative Christians, according to Bawer, see foreigners as "very much
the other." (Don't we all? But talk to a few foreign students, and chances
are you'll find many have been befriended by evangelicals -- my wife was once
one.) These folks have a "loathing of sex." Pastors treat church members like children, and teach them
to put on a front. Believers are even taught not to love. Megachurches are "more of an
entertainment than a spiritual excursion."
Every serious observer knows these complaints are sometimes true. But we also know that often they
aren't. One can find churches, and
Christians, to justify all these complaints. But that's called "stacking
the deck," and that's really what Bawer is doing in this book.
Read Arthur Brooks' "Who Really Cares" for a more objective summary
of Christian compassion in America.
Brooks shows that believers both in the alleged "Church of
Love" and the alleged "Church of Legalism" are in fact far more
compassionate than those who don't go to church at all. (In terms of giving money, time, and
even blood to charity, and every other measure of generosity.)
Second, while more fair than Dawkins or Hedges, Bawer can be terribly
unfair. He criticizes James Dobson
for promoting a naive picture of 1950s America. There may be some truth to this criticism. But it is also true, according to
government statistics, that violent crime skyrocketed in the 1960s and 70s, and
that far fewer kids today have fathers.
While of course institutionalized racism is rarer today, thank God,
isn't Dobson reasonable to decry some of these other trends?
Bawer talks about "spiritual warfare" as if he'd never heard of a
metaphor, or assumes conservative Christians are too stupid to maintain the
difference between metaphor and reality.
He assumes that Waco or "Christian Identity" are the natural
conclusion of conservative Christianity -- though neither is orthodox
Christian. He lists several
violent cults, none of them orthodox Christian, then adds, "If anything
should amaze us, it is . . . that more legalistic Christians have not chosen to
act out in conspicuous and sensational ways." Bawer sounds disappointed. Perhaps he should begin to question his assumption that
orthodox Christianity belongs in the same category as, say, the Taliban or
Heavens' Gate.
It should be a clue to the failure of his hypothesis, when Bawer has to point
to non-Christian extremism to buttress his argument. He says the Taliban is "a terrifying illustration of
what can happen when legalistic religion moves from theory to practice." But might it not make a difference if
the theory is different?
What is the relationship between love and law? Jesus said he did not come to "abolish" the law,
but to "fulfill" it. And
is anti-nominalism really an option? Even "liberal" churches have
implicit legalisms, after all. In
some churches, driving a Hummer might be frowned on, or flying a Confederate
flag, or failing to recycle. And
for "conservative" Christians, laws like "thou shalt not commit
adultery" are not merely tacked onto the "law of love," they are
an expression of love -- of commitment, kindness, justice, responsibility -- in
a certain sphere of life. It seems
to me a more nuanced and cautious discussion of this complex issue is required
that this Manichean "light and dark" image of two churches, one
committed to righteous love, the other to evil law.
"Before you take the splinter out of your brothers' eye, first take the
log out of your own eye." We
can all still learn a lot from Jesus -- gay members of the "Church of
love," straight members of the "Church of legalism," and those
who are members of none. What is
needed is that we come to Christ willing to die to ourselves, and recognizing
that he is lord, and so we might all need to change in fundamental -- though
not necessarily fundamentalist -- ways, as he calls us beyond ourselves.
Who
Really Cares? The Surprising Truth
About Compassionate Conservatism – Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and why it Matters, Arthur Brooks
**** “Bleeding
Heart Conservatives”
America is deeply polarized. This can be seen, if nowhere else,
from reviews of this book. The split between parties has morphed into a split
between philosophies ("liberal" and "conservative") and
increasingly, worldviews (here, "religious" and
"secularist.") It has become hard to talk about much of anything
fairly across "party lines."
Brooks tries to do so. He does not pull punches: he states the facts clearly
and succinctly. But he tries to soften the sting of the blow of his argument by
telling anecdotes, including the story of his own journey. He writes in simple
language, and anticipates contrary arguments well.
Brooks' own argument is that religious people, and by default conservatives,
are more generous than liberals. If you read the critical reviews below, you
will not find any that really challenge his main points. In fact, unless he has
made his statistics up (which seems highly unlikely), his argument appears
essentially incontrovertable. In America, religious people are in every
measurable way dramatically more generous than secularists. The same holds true
when you compare religious America with secular Europe, or believers in Europe
with non-believers. Everyone who reads Dawkins, Harris, Goldberg, Carter, or
other often recent attacks on "Jesusland" should read and ponder the
facts in this book deeply. It is said that a lie gets halfway around the world
before truth puts her shoes on; I hope these facts can outpace the propaganda.
Even a conservative Christian like myself may find some of the contents of this
book surprising, though. It appears, for example, that religious non-Christians
in America are equally generous. As we interact with the more angry members of
the Dawkins / Goldberg faction, I think it would be wrong to adopt a
triumphalist or in-your-face attitude about such facts. As Brooks seems to
recognize, we need to look deeper than politics, to the value and need of each
individual, including those with whom we disagree.
Brooks' argument is pretty straightforward and sometimes a little dry. Brooks
helps bring it to life by writing in a conversational style. It's not hard to
read, but in the end is basically a bunch of statistics dressed up in words.
Still, these are facts that ought to be known.
Our
Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis, Jimmy Carter
* “Republicans
are Sinners”
If you don't remember why Jimmy Carter was voted out of office so
emphatically, read this book. It's not that he is wrong all the time. It's that
he clearly thinks he's not only right, but righteous, and that those who
disagree with him are unholy along with deluded. If Carter were not a
politician, he would be the kind of preacher who says "we have
sinned," when he really means "you."
One of Carter's chief bogeymen in this book is the people he calls
"fundamentalists." Indeed, one reviewer implies that those who
dislike this book will be mainly "fundamentalists" who "want our
country to become a theocracy," along with "rabid Republicans who
attack anything democratic." I am neither. In fact, in decades of working
with conservative Christians of many denominations, I am not sure I have heard
anyone advocate theocracy. Carter, however, argues that Christian theocrats
were a key element in the coalition that voted Bush into power. Worse, it seems
these wackos see it as their "personal responsibility" to instigate
war leading to Armageddon in the Middle East!
I find it deeply irresponsible for a former president to represent his
political opponents in such an uncharitable and divisive way (And he wonders
where civility in politics went!) While it may be possible to find some nutty
Republican who truly thinks like this -- though I haven't, so far -- so one can
probably also find seedy characters who voted for Carter. (Not to mention among
his friends, like that thug Yasser Arafat.) But to write a book that will be
naively accepted as Gospel in many circles abroad "explaining"
American foreign policy in this absurd manner is remarkably unstatesman and
reckless. The fact is, regime change in Iraq was US policy already under Bill
Clinton. Most leading Democrats spoke in favor of overthrowing Saddam. Carter
is free to disagree, but to publicly accuse the opposing party of invading Iraq
to bring about the end of the world, is not merely uncharitable, it is daft.
I know the image Carter paints of the "religious right" will be
attractive to many readers -- looking at reviews below, it is obvious that is
one of the book's great selling points. But ask yourself, on what evidence are
you assuming the worst about so large a portion of your countrymen? As someone
who not only grew up in that sub-culture, but has interacted with conservative
Christians from dozens of denominations, I say he is wrong. And I challenge
anyone to provide reliable demographic data to support his implied claim that a
sizable percentage of Christians favor war in the Middle East in order to
fulfill end times scenarios. I have heard NO ONE say that.
Carter also has the gall to blame Bush for the threat North Korea poses in East
Asia. Actually, he admits that a "strong argument might be made on both sides."
What two sides? On the one hand, the Kim family co-opt, the communist regime
that invaded the South, killing millions, tortured or murdered every Christian
it got its hands on, blew up a civilian airplane in Burma, kidnapped people at
random off beaches in Japan, tunnels under the DMZ, launches missiles over
Japan, points others at Seoul, and easily fooled Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton
into thinking it closed its nuke program down. Carter admits that a case might
be made that this North Korea is to blame for the problems on the Korean
peninsula! But he, himself, does not make that case.
Who stands in the opposite scale of Carter's moral equation? The US -- which
spent blood and treasure to defend South Korea, allowing it its present freedom
and prosperity? He refers instead it seems to the evil Bush administration. And
what crime has Bush committed in Korea? He concluded that Carter's deal with
the Kim regime was a sham. Kim accepted all the goodies we offered, but did not
quite discontinue his nuclear program. Now that the shell game is doubtful,
Bush insists that other countries in the area -- and in range of Kim's missiles
-- be involved in talks on de-fanging the beast. It seems this president
doesn't want a repeat of Carter's earlier possibly potemkin deal: for some
strange reason, he is leery of gentlemen's agreements with tyrants and
terrorists. While Carter was praising the intelligence of Kim and the beauty of
his wife (who didn't vote for Bush, after all), Christians and other
non-conformists were being used as human guinea pigs in North Korean prisons.
Pardon the sarcasm. Carter may intend well. But before he lectures the rest of
us about morality, he badly needs to examine his own actions. As scholar Joshua
Muravchik pointed out, Carter is habitually charitable towards despots like
Kim, Arafat, Tito, Castro, and Ceausescu. He just draws the line at the GOP, it
seems.
I am not in favor of theocracy, and will be happy to praise democrats for
positive foreign policy ideas. (I studied at the Henry M. Jackson School of
International Studies, after all!) But I am so glad Jimmy Carter was voted out
of office. It is no longer his job to conduct foreign policy. In fact, it is
his job NOT to continue running his own amateur one-man state department,
undermining official US policy, writing letters to foreign leaders telling them
to oppose US policy, and creating misinformation and ill-will towards Americans
abroad. Read this book, and find out why the American people had the good sense
to send this ex-president packing; and why he should go packing again. Perhaps
he should go to New Orleans and build houses.
Architects
of the Culture of Death, Donald De Marco
**** “Dancing
with Wolves”
In light of recent reviews, it may be helpful to begin by saying
what this book is not about. It is not an apologia for large families. Neither
is it an attack on socialism or a defense of such alleged "major"
players in the spread of capitalism as El Salvador, Panama, and
"Algiers." (The reviewer who suggests this is eloquent, though I
think badly deficient in his history -- but this book is not a defense of what
he attacks.)
Architects of the Culture of Death describes the lives, thoughts, and influence
of 23 "great thinkers" who helped make our world. These include the
famous -- Nietzche, Darwin, Marx, Sartre, Freud, Margaret Mead, Kinsey,
"Dr. Death," Peter Singer -- the relatively unknown, and those
somewhere in between (Ayn Rand, Margaret Sanger). What they share in common is
they expanded on the intellectual and Promethian tendencies of the
Enlightenment, attempted to reinvent human nature, usually had troubled (or
frankly perverse) personal lives, and (the authors think) made the world a much
worse place. Each chapter tells an individual story, usually rather sad, and
draws a moral. The stories strung together are meant to show how Western
civilization moved from a "pro-life" Christian perspective, to a
perspective that diminishes and disfigures humanity, ending in abortion, infanticide,
sexual loneliness, and of course the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century.
But most of the lines lead towards Western secularism.
The authors are not "morons" or "idiots," as the reviewer
of apocalyptic temperment suggests. They are intelligent and informed, if
sometimes simplistic. I'm not sure Darwin deserves the honor of being in the
company of some of the deeply sinister folks who haunt these pages. De Marco
and Wiker seem a bit more cautious and thoughtful than Paul Johnson in his scathing
and not always fair Intellectuals, but never as profound as C. S. Lewis in his
classic Abolition of Man, or as historically detailed as From Darwin to Hitler.
But the territory covered is similar, and readers may find these books
worthwhile too.
True, fools, madmen, and false Messiahs -- those Jesus called
"wolves" -- are always with us. But there is a heart of darkness in
the Enlightenment project that wars with whatever good once guided Western
civilization out of its periodic madnesses, and bids (it seems at times) to
snuff the light of humanity from our souls. You may disagree with the authors
about the source of that darkness, or the nature of the Light. You may feel
they preach too much. You may argue there are other threats to worry about, as there
are. But clearly, overpopulation and greedy businessmen are not our deepest
dangers; human nature itself may be up for grabs. It may take special courage
for "progressives" to read these stories and honestly entertain
whatever truth can be found in De Marco and Wiker's warnings. But for those
willing to face such criticism, the rewards may be greatest. As Proverbs says,
"he who regards reproof is prudent."
Kingdom
Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Michelle Goldberg
** “The Sky
is Falling!”
Michelle Goldberg thinks the Religious Right is out to create
theocracy in America. She tours the outbacks of Suburbistan to interview
members of this strange religious tribe, and report to, I suppose, other
secular journalists from the Bronx who haven't met any for themselves.
This appears to be the new fad in paranoia. Kevin Phillips, Sam Harris, and
even Jimmy Carter just wrote books making roughly the same claim. I'll give
Goldberg this: she knows more than Harris, at least, and she's not as grating
as Carter. She did get out and talk to people. She even admits she liked most
of them. (Qualifying herself by pointing out that she also liked people she met
in the wild and crazy Middle East.)
The first serious problem with this book is simple: Goldberg doesn't know what
she's talking about. I grew up in evangelical churches, and have been involved
with Christians belonging to dozens of denominations for the past 45 years.
Goldberg tries to catch up in a quick blur of travel, but it's like she's
traveling through a foreign country. For example, she makes the absurd claim
that there were only ten churches with 2,000 or more members in the whole
country in 1970. She makes the Presbyterian Church in America sound like some
ultra-insidious organization. I grew up in the denomination, and had no idea it
was so exciting -- no one even told us to vote Republican!
Goldberg's thesis is complete twaddle. I have never met an American Christian
who wants to get rid of the Constitution and create a theocracy, and have been
in hundreds of evangelical churches, urban and rural, of many denominations.
Jesus said "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." As
historians who have studied the issue know, that advice has had a long and
fruitful history in Christian thought, helping slowly form Western pluralism. A
state religion is the very last thing most of us want.
Goldberg is young and ignorant. She seems to think everything good in Western
culture began with the Enlightenment, and that the Enlightenment occurred in 1973.
Judging by the topics she covers, her real fear is not that Christians will
shred the Constitution, but roll back some of the judicial and social
"advances" of the past 30 years. Most of the book is about sex:
abortion, gay rights, and promiscuity in general. Here Goldberg is right to
think we would like to "roll back the clock," or forward, depending
on which direction you think we should go. But if she thinks significant
numbers of Christians want to reform society beyond Constitutional bounds, or other
than through reason and the ballot box, I challenge her to prove it with some
real evidence, rather than the series of out-of-context statements and
connect-the-dots inuendos that obfuscates this book.
As for the reader who warns darkly about the words "In God we trust"
in Mississippi schools, I don't suppose she's looked at American money lately?
She talks ominously about the southern judge who displayed the Ten Commandments
in his courtroom. Never mind the fact that the state Supreme Court, made up
mostly of conservative Christians I believe, ordered it removed. Folks, anyone
left or right, Christian or atheist, who wants to select facts like that to
prove a particular case and work himself or herself up into a fine lather of
paranoia, can do so any day of the week and twice on Sundays. It's called
stacking the deck.
The second main problem with this book is that Goldberg does not argue issues.
Preaching entirely to the choir, she treats serious differences about the
meaning of American democracy as if those who disagreed with her were some kind
of sociological outlier group from Mars, and never even tries to persuade her
readers that she is right on the issues. She explains that the book was born in
a conversation with her agent, and it shows.
I think Christianity helped create Western freedoms, and that liberty is part
of God's modus operandi. I have stood in front of hundreds of conservative
Christians and said the same, and no one has stoned me yet. Goldberg can
disagree if she likes; it's a free country, and God willing will remain so. But
she needs to get at least a minimal grasp of Christian thought before she can
begin to do so intelligently.
I guess we can expect more books on the subject. If any other secularists have
similar ambitions, please do your homework! First, immerse yourself in the
primary documents, the New Testament. (Which Goldberg may or may not have heard
of.) Then read the Church Fathers -- Augustine in particular, and Justin
Martyr. Do some Pascal, and John Locke, maybe John of Paris Then read Rodney
Stark's four volume set on the influence of Christianity, Chesterton and Lewis,
sure, Francis Schaeffer, and magazines like First Things and Books and Culture.
If you're going to say something about "faith," (Harris made a total
fool of himself on this issue), please read my anthology on faith and reason at
christthetao.com.
Then go ask ordinary Christians. "Do you want to get rid of the
Constitution?" "Do you think America should be a theocracy?"
"Have you ever heard of Rushdooney?" "Do you secretly admire the
Ayatollah Khomeini?" Prepare for some interesting facial expressions.
Stones, you don't need to worry about.
American
Fascists: The Religious Right and its War on America, Chris Hedges
* “Why, oh
why, does my flesh creep?”
Of the some 300 books I've reviewed at Amazon -- and I disagreed
with half of them -- this may be the worst. Let me (begin to) count the ways:
(1) The writing is pure schlock. Hedges makes bold assertions -- Dobson is a
fascist, evangelicals are totalitarians, conservative Christianity is all about
mind control and subjugation of women -- gives a single anecdote, then fills
page after page with meandering psycho-babble. How does a graduate from the Harvard Divinity school become
an authority on Freud? Don't they
teach them to qualify, specify, or avoid sweeping generalizations at the New
York Times?
If you like rigorously defined claims, backed up by strong evidence and clear
logic, this book will drive you crazy.
Want an ill-informed hatchet job on Christianity? Read Harris or Dawkins: their
books are at least well-written.
(2) Hedges accuses the "religious right" of hatred, but I've never
seen anything so one-sided and uncharitable from any Christian writer that I
can recall. Hatred radiates from
every page of this book.
(3) Hedges defines "fascism" so vaguely (admitting
up-front his definition is self-contradictary, as if to pre-empt criticism),
that it could apply to anyone or no one.
Whole chapters of this book seem to have nothing to do with his
thesis. So what if James Kennedy
teaches people to use canned evangelistic techniques? Fascism is supposed to be about storm-troopers and
concentration camps, not campy religious come-ons.
(4) Hedges makes liberal use of the "heurmeneutics of
suspicion." "Anything
you say can and will be used against you." Mother Theresa would come out
looking like a Nazi after he was done with her.
Full disclosure. I am (broadly speaking) one of Hedges' targets. I'm Christian, generally vote
Republican, and am fairly conservative. I grew up among conservative Christians
-- I've visited over 300 fellowships of one kind or another around the world,
and my family and friends all belong to this sub-culture.
You might take that as a reason to reject my review as "sour grapes."
But it also means I know this group of people -- what they think, what they
want -- far better than Hedges, Goldberg, Harris, Phillips, or Dawkins do. While I am not objective of course, I
have reviewed many books by atheists, communists, Buddhists, Hindus, gays,
Muslims, and all sorts of other people, and usually find something good to say.
I certainly don't deny that there are flaky Christians. But as a generalization about the
Christian community, this book is the vilest slander. It is demogogic, paranoid, and deeply
dishonest. It is also one of the
most tedious books I have ever opened -- like listening to a sermon by a
malevolent elderly pastor who thinks he is profound because he is vague, and
thinks he is charitable because he uses words like charity, even while he tries
(in his vague way) to cut the throats of people he hates. I can't help thinking of the Grimm
story of the boy whose flesh would not creep, try as he might. "Why, oh why, does not my flesh
creep?" Read this book, kid.
Ariana
Huffington
* “Another
Loud-Mouthed Fanatic”
Some books you need to read through thrice, learn a new language,
study a two new scientific disciplines, and then sit and think for ten years,
before you know whether the author is a genius, or full of beans. Others you
can pick off the shelf and tell in a ten minute skim.
This book appears to belong to the latter category.
I opened to the section on "Global Warming." Within a single
paragraph, I learned that (1) Glaciers in Alaska are melting within a single
decade; (2) Native animals are dying off en masse; and (3) Native villages are
disappearing, all due to Global Warming.
As it happens, I grew up partly in Southeast Alaska. Two years ago I returned
to the town I lived in, and visited a famous glacier less than two miles from
our home. In 30 years, the glacier had retreated a quarter of a mile; about
1/40th of its total length. The previous century, it had retreated two more
miles or so; so apparently its retreat has actually slowed down a bit. Of the
30-odd glaciers in that Ice Field (the Juneau Ice Field), all but two were
retreating; but no serious glaciers seem to have simply disappeared the last
three decades, let alone one. Maybe Huffington is talking about some glacier in
the Brooks Range; but it sounds like the sort of vague, blanket propaganda you
get from someone who doesn't have the faintest clue of what she's talking
about.
The implication that native animals are dying off en masse reinforces that
impression. Bears seem to have taken over the town I lived in; we saw more in a
few days (in two recent visits) than I did in years while living there,
sometimes. Wolves, cariboo, deer, dall sheep, mountain goats -- Alaska is not
suffering from a wild animal shortage. But of course her comment was so
indefinite and vague, that it could mean anything -- again, she sounds like
some hysterical woman talking on a subject she's totally clueless about.
Perhaps she meant polar bears, which were no doubt happy to see the Arctic
Ocean freeze pretty solidly this winter; the seals and belugas may have been
ambivalent.
As for Native villages disappearing because of Global Warming, I'd like to know
exactly how that's supposed to be happening. The last two years, Southeast
Alaska has had unusually COLD winters. And I think that's been true of
Fairbanks and Anchorage, too. But even if the temperature in some Central
Alaskan burgh did skyrocket from an average 30 below zero in January, to say 25
below, exactly why that would wipe out whole villages, it is hard to say, and
details are not provided. Lots of Alaskan natives survive here in Seattle,
without visibly overheating.
The truth is, "native" villages have been under stress for a long
time, now -- from globalization, not global warming. Even Dr. Johnson seemed to
notice a precursor of this phenomena during his jaunt through Scotland with
James Boswell. Today, villages across East Asia are full of old people, as
youths go to the cities to work. The same thing has been happening among native
tribes of North America for a long time.
Leafing through the rest of the book, it appears to be much the same. This
woman hates a bunch of people, and stacks a bunch of cards to make them sound
vile, stupid, evil, and a threat to the planet. Might as well be Ann Coulter,
except she's a tad less witty. Could be a female Michael Savage. One rude,
ill-informed ranter is as good (or bad) as another. If that's the sort of thing
you enjoy, bon appetite -- I think I'll look for a book written by someone who
actually knows something.
The
Abolition of Man,
C. S. Lewis
***** “Bio-engineers,
read this book!”
A timely and prophetic defense of the
authority of moral absolutes. (Prophetic not in the sense of foreseeing the
future -- though a little of that too -- but of boldly speaking unpopular
truths to a culture that sorely needs to hear them.) Just a few months ago
Francis Fukuyama actually used the phrase "abolition of man" in a
positive way to describe the effect of upcoming advances in genetic engineering
and computer technology on the human race. God save us from ourselves.
The Puget Sound reader who, in an otherwise cogent critique, complained
that Lewis' use of the word "Tao" to describe traditional morality is
"presumptuous," couldn't be more wrong. The word's original
non-metaphorical meaning (road or path) was first expanded by Confucius (not
Lao Zi), who used it in precisely that sense. ("Our Master's Tao is simply
this: conscientiousness and consideration.") In Lao Zi, though some
passages can be interpretted as antinomian (if you favor letter over spirit), I
think that as with Jesus, it was not goodness Lao Zi meant to rebuke, but
people who think they can legislate it. Indeed, the history of Taoism nicely
illustrates Lewis' thesis about the universality of the moral code. By the end
of the second century, mainstream Daoism was interpreting Lao Zi's attack on
moral rules to mean you need to follow the right rules. By the Fifth Century
lists of sins appear that could have been written by a Southern Baptist
preacher with Sierra Club leanings: "The sin to throw food or drink into
fresh water. . . to eat by yourself when among a group. . . to abort children
or harm the unborn . . to be nasty to beggars. . . to worship ghosts and
spirits." (!) Yes, there are differences, as Lewis admitted, yet the
similiarities are not "superficial," but show morality is universal
truth rather than an arbitrary convention.
How great is the danger Lewis writes of? I am not sure. But certainly
this remains a timely warning against relativism, a reductionist approach to
man and to nature, and all the sordid machinations of realpoliticians and
social engineers around the world. My only serious complaint is the book too
short. ....
Won by
Love: Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade, Speaks out for the Unborn as
she shares her new conviction for life
***** “Can
I buy the movie rights?”
Just kidding. The movie industry would
hand over Hollywood Hills to the Southern Baptists for a retreat center before
it made a film out of this book. But what a story! As fascinating as the basic
outline is -- Roe becomes friends with Operation Rescue personal, believes in
Jesus and turns against abortion -- the details are even more fascinating. This
dramatic, personal, and very frank book is not just about abortion. It is about
a human being whose heart begins to melt under the love of her neighbors and
"enemies." It is wonderful drama, with characters and dialogues too
good to have been invented. And unlike most Hollywood movies, there are some
real heroes in this one.
The story is extremely well-told. The co-author seems to have done a
good job of allowing Norma to speak in her own voice, and she doesn't hide her
flaws, hurts, or biases, or idiosyncricies. I think anyone who is interested in
the topic of abortion, or just wants to read a fascinating spiritual
pilgrimage, should read this book. Then give it to a friend.
Apart from abortion, one of the most unsettling things about the story
Ms. McCorvey tells is the injustice and bigotry with which the press, courts,
and even the police treated Operation Rescue. It makes you wonder if, for all
our history of free speech, our American love of freedom runs as deep in our
veins, and is as secure, as we would like to think.
Coming
of Age in Samoa,
Margaret Mead
** “Gilligan’s
Island on a Friday Night”
Coming of Age in Samoa is a pleasantly-written South Sea fantasy, heavy with the author's
social agenda upon it. If you buy the agenda, apparently you can hardly help
like the book. (See reviews below.) Even if I bought the agenda (and it is hard for me to look at American
society and say the sexuality Mead encouraged has made people entirely free of
guilt or conflict), I would still choke on her dishonesty. But as they say in
the anthro business, different strokes for different folks.
Some of the defenses of this book below are hilarious. "Sure, it's
largely untrue. But it reads well!" (And here I thought
it was supposed to be science.) "It stimulated my thinking about culture! Mead really did
interview thirty live Samoans! (In some language or other.) "Besides, what scholarship from that
era would not sound like fiction today?" (Uh, honest scholarship? Do you want a book
list?)
The interesting thing about this book, to me, is the way it illustrates
human self-deception, in particular the hubris of those who claim to speak for
"Science." Being interested in such curiosities, for me personally the book was
worth buying. Mead's sexual fantasies are not the only instance in the 20th
Century in which anthropologists sought to throw out "religious
dogma" in favor of "scientific" new theories of their own
cultivation. As pleasant as an idyllic trip to the islands may be, those for whom
such theories hold charm should remember that honest scholarship and
imagination are two different things, that vacations in Fantasy Island usually
cost something, and that the one who takes the vacation is not always the
person who pays the bill.
*****
Ten Big Lies About America, Michael Medved
“Effective,
Mostly Accurate, a bit Over-the-Top”
Recently, I was sitting in a pub in Oxford with a friend from
India. He seems to find me, an American who did not share in the general
"euphoria" in the UK over Obama's election, a rather exotic creature.
But he made an interesting suggestion: why not look at the election of Obama,
even if you don't welcome it, as a chance to reinvent what it means to be an
American Christian, in a way that will connect more deeply with the world at
large?
His challenge was still in the back of my mind when I read this book.
The years of American hegemony are now ending, and China and India will soon
take positions on the world stage in some proportion to their vast populations.
Witnessing how broadly many of the "lies" Medved describes are
believed outside the US, I'd love to give Chinese and Indian friends a book like
this and say: "See what America has been, at its best, for the world. As
your power grows, try to emulate what you can of our successes, or do us one
better."
Most of Medved's arguments are solid. He cites leading experts as well as
opponents to make his case, and I think generally gets his facts right. (Notice
that critics so far generally depend on vague complaints, unable it seems to
point to specific errors.) Among other things, he argues that: America has
seldom been as nasty to the Indians as is often claimed. The Founding Fathers
were less secularist than supposed. (I wish he'd given both sides here, though
-- as Steven Waldmon does in Founding Faith.) Big Business does help the
country. America has seldom been truly imperialist, and has done the world a
lot of good. And morality rises and falls; "a dizzying roller coaster of
steep ups and downs, zigzags, climbs and reverses, and even
loop-the-loops."
Medved carefully limits his claims, then backs them up with copious relevant
facts. Many of his facts and anecdotes are quite interesting -- McKinley's
prayer for the Phillipines, the story of how "America the Beautiful"
was written, the size of houses in the 1950s compared to our
"supersized" homes of today.
In the end, though, Medved is a bit too triumphalist to wish his book into the
hands of Indian or Chinese friends. Sometimes he simply protests too much.
Granted there was no official American policy of genocide. Granted that most
Indians deaths came from disease, that others married out rather than being
murdered, even that Indian cultures were "savage" in some sense.
Still, the fact is, we wound up with the land (just as China ended up with
Tibet, and India with Nagaland), and they wound up with treaties for half of
almost extinct salmon runs. Is self-justification really the right tone to
take? Having heard the same tone, and some of the same arguments, from Chinese
about Tibet, I feel a bit uncomfortable with them. I would also have liked to
have seen a more positive statement from Medved on the role native peoples were
to play in America, culturally as well as in terms of territory.
To some extent, Medved's "American exceptionalism" cuts us off from
others -- from our European roots, from human tradition as a whole.
(Sociologist Rodney Stark gives a much more nuanced reading of what went into
American success -- most of which is not unique to America.)
I believe America has done a great deal of good in the world. But pride comes
before a fall, for countries as well as individuals. One thing that typifies
nations at their greatest periods of growth -- Japan in the late 19th Century,
China during the Tang and today, America at the revolution -- is a combination
of confidence, and openness to outside ideas.
The challenge for conservatives, and for Christians, is to find a way of
affirming our ideals, to seek reform on the model of Burke, Jefferson, Reagan,
or St Paul, yet to do so in a way that helps us develop a fuller appreciate of
the God-given beauties and truths in other traditions as well. Medved does seem
to appreciate good in other cultures to some extent, but is unable to
articulate his patriotism, and how it relates to the riches humanity shares in
common, in what I found to be a fully satisfying manner. This is a generally
excellent book, full of useful information, and an important answer to unfair
attacks on the American heritage; but infused with a less than fully satisfying
philosophy of patriotism. Maybe Medved should read G. K. Chesterton.
The Hand
of God, Nathanson
***** “Needs
more negative reviews”
C. S. Lewis once wrote, "For many
healthy extroverts, self-examination first begins with conversion. For me it was the
other way around. . . I had been 'taken out of myself.'" While it would be
inaccurate to call Dr. Nathanson a "healthy extrovert" before he
became a Christian, this is the story of an abrasive and self-centered man who,
coming into the presence of God, became more aware of what was within. He is almost
painfully honest in telling what he found and why it troubled, and continues to
trouble, him. T he book's confessionary ending reminds
the reader that the spiritual journey, like a human partnership, only begins
when one steps up to the altar. Perhaps the opposite delusion, our demand for
instant gratification, pay-off without investment, is one fault behind American
acceptance of cheap grace, fast food, divorce, and abortion alike.
While the Hand of God is first of all a
contemporary spiritual pilgrimage, it is also a book that anyone who is at all
open-minded about abortion should read and carefully consider. Dr. Nathanson has
looked at abortion from both sides, now: he knows very well what he is talking
about. So it is a pity
there are so few reviews of this book here, including the kind of attacks from
hostile reviewers that show a point has sunk in, or that a book has sold beyond
its narrowest constituency. This is a book more people ought to read. I might add that it is well-written and
full of surprising and sometimes rather contrarian observations.
Return
to Modesty: Wendy Shalit
**** “Love
Beats Lust, After All”
A person who knows the thought of only his own time and country is
like the frog in the Chinese proverb who looks at the sky from a well. Shalit
makes good use of Jane Austen and other voices of sanity from eras bygone,
including Jewish tradition, to launch a revolution against one of the most
provincial and demeaning errors of our day: the "boys (and girls) will be
boys" view of sexuality, that the only problems with promiscuity are STDs and
unwanted pregancies, and those can be solved. She could have found a more
holistic and human view of sex in other cultures as well as other eras, that
aren't so nutty as our own in this particular way.
Admittedly, critics get in a few good licks below. Shalit repeats herself too
much: the book should have been shortened by 20 pages. She portrays men as
tending towards rudeness, filth, and animimalism as pigs tend towards mud;
which seems a bit over the top.
But Shalit writes well and boldly. Her stories are fascinating; and frankly,
American adults deserve the scolding she gives. Having unearthed strong
supporting evidence that monogamy leads to better health, happiness, and even
sexual fulfillment (for my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man), I also think
the evidence is on Shalit's side. If I could, I might give a copy of this book
to every high school girl in the country. (As a teacher, I am often faced with
displays of student immodesty. Maybe I'd lose my job, but sometimes I would
like to tell some of the girls, "You come to class dressed that way, and
sure, you'll attract attention. But I also hear you saying, 'I don't think much
of myself, and don't expect you to respect me, either.'")
I am disturbed by the psychology professor below who found that in a class of
63, "The rejection of Shalit's ideas was total," and described
Shalit's argument as "a new way to debase women." What kind of Stalinist dictatorship
yields such perfect agreement? And
how could college kids, evidently brainwashed or afraid to let out a peep of
disagreement, know that there was "much more ('hidden') violence"
towards women before the sexual revolution? Check the census statistics for any state in the Union: the
rate of sexual assaults, like every other violent crime, has skyrocketed since
the 60s.
That sexual promiscuity ruins millions of lives is one of the most obvious
facts about modern American society: the evidence is all around. Shalit proposes a modest solution. The really interesting psychological
question is why that solution, echoing the wisdom of many ages and cultures,
seems to bother some modern folks.
Jesus
Land: A Memoir,
Julia Scheeres
“A Daisy
Cracks the Concrete”
This is one of those heart-breaking books, like Elie Wiesel's Silence, or the stories of
Ivan in The Brothers Kharamazov, that make you question not only a given
religious authority, but God himself. It is more painful than the book of Job,
in a way, because here unrelenting cruelty strikes not an adult, but innocent
kids. Yet as other reviewers note, this book also contains hope. Julia Sheeres
and her brother slowly overcome the cruelty of parents, a racist town, and what
can only be described as a Christian concentration camp in the Dominican
Republic, through love of life and of one another. The author has done a
wonderful job, telling her story. I could hardly put the book down.
I also grew up in an evangelical Christian family. My parents really follow the
teachings of Jesus, though; and I don't think that's so rare. But I think
Christians should read this book. Jesus warned about "wolves in sheeps'
clothing," who come to "kill and destroy," rather than give
life. Sheere's story should encourage us examine our own motives, and also also
keep an eye out for children in families like this, even in the church. Kids
need real love from someone, God knows.
On the other hand, I don't think readers should identify this kind of abuse
with evangelical Christianity too closely, as some seem to below. No matter the
ideology or lack thereof, every generation produces horror stories about
growing up. M. Scott Peck's analysis of four levels of religion fits this story
well. Sheeres' parents, and the thug who ran the camp, appear to have been
classic "level two" religious types, who escaped moral (redneck
style) anarchy by adherence to rigid authoritarian beliefs. But even number two
types often show more love than this.
For those who understandably feel leery of Christianity in general because of
such nastiness, I recommend seeking balance by considering the arguments of
Vishal Mangalwadi, Carroll and Shiflett's Christianity on Trial, or the chapter in my
own Jesus and the Religions of Man entitled "How Has Jesus Changed the
World?" The answer to one form of dogmatism is not dogmatism on the other
side, but a fearless commitment to truth wherever it lies, and fairness all
around.
Dreaming
War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, Gore Vidal
** “Paranoia
on a Silver Platter”
Every president at least since Franklin Roosevelt has been in the
pocket of corporate America. Roosevelt had to prod the Japanese into attacking
us, and of course knew the attack was coming. Truman dropped atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki to scare the Russians, even while forcing poor old
Stalin into a confrontation that the Soviets didn't want. Osama bin Laden was
chosen "on aesthetic grounds" as the latest member of our "enemy
of the month club." Apparently the Cheney-Bush junta was expecting 9/11,
needing it to justify the conquest of Afghanistan. They "leveled"
that sorry country only to let Union Oil of California to build a pipeline
across it.
If you can buy any of this, and like your paranoia served up on a rhetorical
silver platter, there's a good chance you'll enjoy this book. But if you want reasoned
argument, at best you will find Vidal's arguments tedious, at worst a sad form
of narcicism. His "evidence" is the stock circumstantial evidence and
out of context quotes of the conspiracy theory, and his techniques those of the
propogandist. (Which, as a student of comparative religion, I have often seen
before.) Run out in front of a car to save a stranger's life, and one sort of
person will call you a show-off, or assume you have vile designs on the life
you saved. Vidal views the American government like that. He engages in what
Paul Mankowski (reviewing his book on another subject) called
"monotonously mirthless tittering." Here, the objects of his titters
are presidents of the United States, from Roosevelt to Bush II, and the figures
in dark rain jackets who stand behind them, or hover above them in black
helicopters.
What makes this book most tedious, to someone like myself who has spent much of
his life studying Soviet and Chinese societies, and living in East Asia, is its
narcisistic focus on American society. It was America's fault that World War II
began (sort of) at Pearl Harbor, and that it ended at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We were to blame for the Cold War (Joseph Stalin was apparently a placid, easy
to get along with individual, unlike that mad haberdasher, Harry Truman), for
Vietnam, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. I find the demonology monotonous,
not to say improbable, and the "evidence" trumped up and absurd.
Vidal and his fans protest that he is not "anti-American." Be that as
it may. But hatred seems to be his great solace, and he chooses objects to
despise (as he put it) on aesthetic, rather than moral or rational, grounds.
All in all, a sad warning about the state a human soul can reach.
Walker Percy may have been thinking of Gore Vidal when he commented that
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was the "secret envy of American writers."
"Despite their most violent attacks on the state and the establishment,
nobody pays much attention . . . least of all the state." Solzhenitysn, by
contrast, took on the Soviet Leviathon, and defeated it. He faced genuine
torture and a thousand deaths, wrote brilliantly, and enjoyed the further
advantage of writing about real, rather than imaginary, crimes. I strongly
recommend that readers who are attracted to this sort of thing read him first.
Founding
Faith: Providence, Politics, and the birth of Religious Freedom in America , Steven Waldman
***** “Beyond
Propaganda”
I approach this book from a rather different point of view than
some other reviewers. I'm a Christian apologist. My most recent book, The Truth
Behind the New Atheism, attempted to refute Richard Dawkins and allies. One of
the chapters of that book, "What About the American Taliban?" tackled
the allegation that conservative Christians are a threat to democracy. Despite
Chris Rodda's claim below that "historical misconceptions and misquotes
used by the 'secularists' can be counted on one hand," counting dubious
claims by that great scholar of American history, Richard Dawkins, alone might
wear out the toes on a centipede. And an ACLU poster glibly suggests that the
Constitution built a "wall of separation" between church and state --
which as Waldmon shows, is at least an exageration, if not a fantasy.
On the other hand, I'm also leery of books like "Sea to Shining Sea,"
and the gross exagerations Christians are also sometimes guilty of.
Steven Waldman does a good job of going beyond propaganda for either side.
While honest and pretty balanced, he is also passionate, engaged, and not
afraid to write well, or to add interesting asides. He concentrates on five
figures: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison, and tells their
stories fairly. He weaves these stories in with a general history of how the
new American idea of church and state evolved. He doesn't try to pin a halo on
anyone's head, but he clearly respects these men, and explains why he thinks
their solution was best. The book is to the point, pithy, and readable -- I
zipped through it in two or three days.
The question that often came to mind, while reading, was "Why didn't
Christians get this earlier?" Sociologist of religion Rodney Stark makes a
strong case for a market view of religious organizations -- any
"church," whatever it's ideology, will oppress, just as Ma Bell will
give bad service, given a monopoly. Jesus seemed to understand that from the
get-go. And some Christians -- Francis Bacon, John Locke, Edmund Burke --
figured it out again, over time. But as Waldman shows, sometimes we Christians
have to learn the implications of our own faith from those who, like Franklin,
Adams, Madison, and Jefferson, have in some sense already left the faith, or
like Gandhi, who never claimed it. Sometimes we have to be hit over the head
with oppression to see what is in front of our eyes.
[...]But after reading the book, I'm inclined to agree with the principals that
Providence was working through its chosen instruments over the course of the
American revolution. I'm also inclined towards a stricter view of separation,
not on legal grounds -- as Waldon shows, those are fairly muddled -- but
because to paraphrase Madison, with friends like Big Government, who needs
enemies?
An important part of the truth.
Stranger
at the Gate: to be Gay and Christian in America, Mel White
** “Riveting
Story, Doubtful Argument”
Mel White was raised in a Christian
home but found himself endowed, apparently through no fault of his own or those
around him, with an interest in men rather than women. The church told him
his desires were wrong, and he needed to change. But he found himself unable to
change, and came in the end to the conclusion that the church was wrong about
homosexuality. Not only wrong, but bigoted, intolerant, hateful, and at the root of a
broad national intolerance that encourages thuggery against gays.
White told his story well, but left me wondering at what he left out. First of all, the
premise of his argument seemed to be that people are endowed with one of two
distinct sexual orientations. But there are plenty of people who fall into some other camp. If homosexuality is
a gift from God, what about those who only find pleasure by giving pain? How
about people attracted to children? They too could say, "I was born this way -- I have always had this
desire -- God made me like this -- I can't help myself." In fact, some of
them do say these things. With these parallels in mind, White's repeated untested
assumption that if one cannot change one's orientation, it is therefore from
God, seemed somewhat hollow and unpersuasive to me.
In fact, White seems to have forgotten the doctrine of the fall -- that
not all in the world is as it ought to be, even in our genes or instincts. White tells us that
"After decades of trying, we discovered that no one can change his sexual
orientation." I am willing to grant that point, at least for the sake of the argument.
But the Bible is
not about orientation (which it says in all cases is somewhat warped) but about
action.
White also seemed to assume that "straights" are simply
affirmed by Christian morality. But I didn't find White's account all that different from my
own life. I also find the
Bible confronting and restraining my natural urges every day. I married at 30. Before and after
that, I tried, with some success and some failure (especially by Jesus' tough
standards) to stay within the constraints Scripture lays down. I am not sure it is much
easier now that I am married. One partner gets sick, ages, loses interest, husband and wife drift
apart -- almost anyone who decides to live as a Christian will face difficult
challenges in regard to sexuality.
Everyone around Mel White goes to great length to say how honest he is. To be frank, many
of his modes of argument seem somewhat devious to me. He claims to bring
up the name of Adolf Hitler with reluctance when speaking of his old clients
among the religious right, yet he does so repeatedly. He tends to
paraphrase the so-called leaders of the religious right (who cares what Jerry
Falwell thinks, anyway?) when citing such parallels, rather than using direct
quotes. Often the sting
lies in what he paraphrases, rather than the words he actually does quote. "Available
studies show that those who attend church regularly. . . tend to be more
disapproving of (gay and lesbian people.)" (Did they say people? Or acts?) He equivocates. "In far too
many cases, those young haters came from Christian homes." (How many is too
many?) His arguments are
full of non-sequiturs and hype. (Did Hitler and
Stalin really quote the Bible when they "created gulags and concentration
camps?" Having studied Marxism, I have yet to come across evidence of Bible
studies in the Kremlin.) And why, having spent so much time looking for evidence to prove that
thugs who beat up on gays were inspired by the religious right, did neither of
the quotations he gave from the thugs mention anything about religion?
White shows the enthusiasm of the convert, but also a great deal of the
bitterness, and the quality of his writing (or should I say "their"
-- he shifts towards the collective "we" of a spokesman or sectarian
towards the end of the book) suffers at times. And yet, on his own account, all those
Christians truly close to him have loved him as best they could. Who is he bitter
at? And why did he
mention so little of his children? He speaks with regret of the sexual pleasures he missed as a youth, and
blames the church. Has it never occurred to him that apart from those
restrictions, whatever we say for or against them, he might not be alive? Isn't that worth
something?
As a story, I found Stranger fascinating, but as an
argument, it brought up more questions than it answered, and seemed more than a
little self-serving.