Adam and Eve January 27, 2012
Posted by bdennert in Books, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
Having co-led a Sunday School class on faith and science to supplement the Genesis series that our church did this Fall and hearing about the upcoming (and now recent) release of Peter Enns’ The Evolution of Adam (and the controversial work of Daniel Harlow), I wanted to read C. John Collins’ Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. Collins is a professor at Covenant Theological Seminary, the seminary of the PCA (my denomination), so I also wanted to see what thinkers in my circle were saying. In some ways, I feel like Collins is doing something somewhat similar to what another Collins–Francis–did e a few years back, though with a significant difference. You see, Francis Collins was the leader of the Human Genome project and a Christian, one who is still a Christian but is trying to reconcile science and Christian faith, as seen in The Language of God. My problem with Francis Collins (see my comments in http://bdennert.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/the-language-of-god/) was that he seemed to dive into biblical interpretation without acknowledging enough that he is out of his realm and I think missing the point on some important biblical issues (perhaps that is why Pete Enns is now involved with BioLogos). On the other hand, C. John Collins is a biblical scholar, one who is trying to figure out how to engage scientific findings and biblical interpretation thoughtfully; he acknowledges where his science knowledge is lacking but also importantly reminds us that scientific findings are often provisional and that scientific claims may be overstated and often do not take into account non-scientific data (e.g., the dissonance we feel between the way the world is and the way it should be). He seeks to walk the fine line between trying to reconcile science and the Bible too quickly but also dismissing whether the two can or should ever be brought into dialogue. I appreciate his approach.
Above all, Collins (henceforth I am refering to John) affirms the need to see Adam and Eve as historical, though recognizing that Genesis 1-3 might be more of an artistic depiction of the initial events of humanity rather than a documentary capturing it “exactly as it is.” This is because of the literary style of the book and its historical context. In light of the biblical storyline and the treatment of Adam in the Bible, he would see the need for Adam to be historical, not just a symbolic story of human experience. An important point that Collins states that is overlooked is that if there is no unified beginning for humanity, then we may wonder why we have univeral instincts/feelings in humanity (sense of lost with death, etc.) and whether this would actually call into question all humans being equal. I thought that was interesting and surprisingly overlooked in discussions. It goes back to the opposition to evolution of William Jennings Bryan stemming in part because of the use of “social Darwinism.”
One may be able to nuance a historical Adam in a number of ways (was he the leader of a tribe or was there a more complex process of creation), but Collins gives a fourfold criteria all explanations need to affirm to reflect the biblical data and show sound thinking:
- The human race was made in a supernatural process, causing humans to have the image of God
- Adam and Eve are the beginning of the human race, as all have God’s image.
- The “fall” was historical and moral and leads to the universal sense that death is wrong; sin and death were not original in creation
- If there were more than 2 humans at the beginning, then they all must be seen as one tribe, with Adam as the head of this tribe causing the fall to affect them all.
What I like about Collins’ book is that he is advocating for considering the scientific and biblical data and trying to find out what is essential and what is not as important; he may disagree with the ideas of others but recognizes that, while he does not find an idea as probable, it is not heretical. That being said, it is not true that anything goes, hence the criteria. If only we had more people discussing things this way rather than pushing a certain ideology. It’s a book I would recommend to those interested in the issue.
God’s Secretaries January 7, 2012
Posted by bdennert in Books.add a comment
While the 400th anniversty of the King James Bible was last year, I am only now getting around reading more about it, seeking to understand how it came about and its influence. The first book I picked up, though, is actually not one prompted by the 400th anniversary, as Adam Nicolson’s God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible was published in 2003 (originally in Britain and it uses British English throughout). Nicolson does not write as a devout Christian nor an atheist (see p. 241), but more of a historian, in this case almost a cultural historian. In some ways, I feel like the title is a bit misleading; I was thinking there would be more about the processes that were involved in the translation than there was. Perhaps that is because, as Nicolson readily admits, we don’t know a whole lot about it. The translators did not, for the most part, seek the limelight; many are essentially historically anonymous, only having names and a few other facts about them. Some documents discussing the translation (both directly or indirectly) have been found, but much would seem to be lost. Therefore, there is not a lot to go through in the processes of the making of the translation; Nicolson does cover those facts when he can (such as the Hampton Court meeting that prompted the translation, the rules for translation, the different committees assigned to do it and the revision process). The book proceeds somewhat in chronological order, but it also reminded me a bit of Capitol Men in its somewhat unclear structure (at least to me), with vignettes on different members of the translation committee appearing in various chapters. In some ways, the book is more about the world and the culture from which the KJV emerged, and less about the actual process. It starts with James I’s ascension to the English crown and the different challenges early in the reign. It continually talks about the peculiarities and key elements of that period in English history, political and cultural, the tensions of the period that shaped the translation. Nicolson essentially seeks to show how the translation epitomizes its historical context.
The irony that Nicolson continued to point out was that the translation was prompted in one sense as a slap in the face to the strong Puritans (the moderate Puritans did particpate), as it was a new translation, as they requested, but not one they probably would like. In some ways, it was the epitome of the English reformation, done by the request of the king and an attempt to moderate various differences and unify the factions. It was done by men who were definitely sinners and saints; they were not perfect or always even pious, some perhaps even symbolizing the corruption that comes to different churches throughout history. In its translation, the KJV sought both majesty of language and precise and faithfulness to the original (though sometimes incorrect and using manuscripts that would prove a bit problematic), in a way different from the typical translation from one language to another. Something unique about the KJV was, in addition to the work done in committees and the way it took the best from all previous English translations, was that the sifting process of proposed translations were checked orally; it was not editors reading it on their own, but them hearing the translation that was the court of appeal. What a shift from our “word-based” culture and inability to listen. A further irony is that, in some ways, the KJV was for public reading, not private study; it did not supplant the Geneva Bible (which had extensive notes, upsetting to some) for private reading, even for the translators. The fact that the KJV made its ways into most American homes and is connected with Puritans and their followers (and for a time served to separate rather than unite groups of Christians) somewhat flies in the face of its original purposes. But I guess for over 300 years it did serve something of a unifying force among Protestants; they had different interpretations but the same Bible and even the same translation. Perhaps after a revival of numerous English translations, we may move towards something that has a consensus as a translation again.
The Bible Made Impossible December 31, 2011
Posted by bdennert in Books, Ministry, Theology and Ministry.2 comments
In The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (published in 2011 by Brazos Press), the sociologist Christian Smith makes the claim that the “biblicist” view of the Bible present in much of American Evangelicalism is an untenable and impossible possible to hold and therefore should be rejected in view of a better approach (as stated in the opening paragraph of the book, p. vii). The first half is an attempt to describe and show the problems of the “biblicist” position, in large part tied to the “pervasive interpretative pluralism,” with the second half of the book being about what would “a truly Evangelical reading of Scripture.” Thus, with this book Smith (a professor at Notre Dame) seems to move a bit from descriptive work contained in his studies on e.g., spirituality in youth, to a more desconstructive/constructive piece, particularly with the second half of the book. Smith acknowledges he may seem like an unlikely person to write about biblical interpretation but seeks to show that he feels like he should precisely because he is not a pastor or a theologian or a teacher at a seminary–he can speak honestly and openly without fear of censure. While in some ways Smith is making some new points or at least in new ways, on the whole his book is indebted to the works of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks, though also influenced by the likes of William Webb and Kevin Vanhoozer (whom he cites at points and at other points follows similar ideas), particularly in the alternative approach offered in the second half of the book.
As I noted, the first half of the book presents the problem with biblicism and the part of the book I found more influential/fascintating/original in light of Smith’s training as a sociologist; I think he is applying his work as a sociologist to evangelicals, observing what he sees. Smith defines “biblicism” according to 10 criteria, which could be summarized as seeing the Bible as the complete, coherent handbook to life which can be interpreted by all through common-sense, inductive study of the Bible alone (see his description on pp. 4-5). The position leads to books on the “biblical” answer to all sorts of issues: diet, dating, money, politics, etc. The problem is that different people come up with different positions on “the” biblical perspective, both in regard to these as well as other issues such as “charistmatic gifts” and “women in ministry” (see X# Views books); there is a “pervasive interpretive pluralism” that seems to show that the biblicist theory does not work out in practice. He notes potential responses to his critique of biblicism and finds them all undercutting the biblicist position (assuming Smith’s description of biblicism is correct). On the whole, Smith finds the “biblicist” concept to be derived not from the Bible but from certain philosophical and historical influences, as well as sociolgoical explanations. Smith claims that Christians understate the significance and variation on these issues, ignoring the problem they present for their theory. Above all, they fail to note the polysemy and multivocal nature of the biblical text; there are multiple meanings possible in the text rather than just one meaning, as evident from the different perspectives that have arisen even within evangelical camps (not just outside of it!) and the way that people make different points and applications with the same text.
I think his analysis and critique is perceptive and accurate of some pockets of Evangelicalism; in my own theological training, I saw the approach he described but not in all of Evangelicalism (according to people’s own labels). As he noted, the move to “theological interpretation of Scripture” and discussion of moving “beyond the Bible” in theology and practice (as opposed to simple replication) within evangelical camps shows that there is movement away from the phenmeona observed by Smith (see Vanhoozer, now back at a flagship “Evangelical” school). Most of these writers don’t make claims as provocative as Smith does, perhaps presenting their positions as a further (and faithful) development rather than an alternative to an impossible position.
As I read the book, I wondered if I am in the “biblicist” camp (Smith does make some references to the PCA, but calls it Presbyterian Church of [not in!] America in a couple of places so I wasn’t sure if he was talking about us!). Probably yes and no–I agree with the need for Christocentric readings, recognize the inherent nature of literature (particular certain types of literature, including some of the genres in the Bible, e.g. narratives) to offer multiple interpreations, and the fact that there is a “progress” of revelation in the Bible. The Bible is not a handbook for living; it is more than that (a point made by Paul Tripp and Tim Lane in How People Change, a book with some connections to Westminster Theological Seminary, which Smith seems to place in the “biblicist” camp). However, I also see that the Bible does offer a coherent worldview ; it does not address everything in a one-to-one relationship but does offer insight and address the concerns of human living in all ages and points in history; some parts of the Bible offer more abstract principles (e.g. Proverbs) while others apply these principles to historical circumstances (e.g. epistles), which should give us ideas for application today. Furthermore, I believe that the weekly sermon should apply the overarching Biblical story to our everyday lives. As I read Smith, I wondered if adopting his ideas would lead to a failure to address real-life issues, which would be another type of failure. What would weekly preaching with Smith’s approach look like? What would it mean for broader church life? Perhaps because he is not a pastor or training pastors, he does not consider these implications.
Smith notes in the introduciton that he has joined the Catholic Church, following along the same “road to Rome” that other Protestants have recently travelled upon. While acknowledging this, Smith does not make the claim that this is the only solution to the problem he sees. In many ways, the problems that Smith identifies I also found problematic in life experience and are what led me to the Reformed tradition and to a particular way to approach preaching and ministry, an approach I learned through the likes of Kevin Vanhoozer at Trinity and Tim Keller and other Reformed preachers influenced by biblical theology and Christocentric readings, as well as the embrace of tradition and creeds (not being nuda or solo Scriptura as Smith describes biblicists). Perhaps the Bible has not been made impossible throughout Evangelicalism.
Letters to a Young Pastor December 23, 2011
Posted by bdennert in Church, Ministry, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
I always like to check out what gems may be hidden in the stacks at the Lisle library in the theology section and I was somewhat surprised to find Calvin Miller’s Letters to a Young Pastor. It seemed to be a book with a surprising small targeted audience to make it into the library (are there a lot of pastors hanging out at the Lisle library or did someone donate it or something?). I had to read it because, well, it seemed to have my name on it. On the whole, it was an enjoyable read, a break from the reading I do for school as well as the history reading I have been doing in my free time. The letters were mostly short and greated into different sections, though I don’t always know why the sections were grouped as they were. I enjoyed especially Miller’s comments about sermons (part four) and the reminded to view sermons as part of an ongoing conversation between pastor and parishoners rather than as a performance; they will be up and down, better and worse, but that’s how relationships work. I also liked his stress on being short, narrative, and listenable, things that are not often said in homelitics class though they probably should be (because if anyone needs to hear that, it is seminary students!). In some ways, that articulates things I have strived for in my own preaching, though of course without as much success as I would like.
It was difficult to page Miller and his thoughts on ministry; what “School” of thought does he belong in? He is obviously against the megachurch, with one letter criticizing megachurches. But yet he often emphasizes how big the church he pastored got, playing into the numbers game of the megachurch. He is also against the emerging church, as he devotes a few letters to address it. He seems somewhat traditional (he discusses denominations a lot) but knows that there are some significant shifts happening within structures and noting that it might not be a bad thing. He emphasizes the importance of holding fast to doctrine, so he is not a liberal or progressive, but it also seems that he was not a firm believer in the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. Perhaps this elusiveness is exactly what Miller wants. He stresses over and over again the need to “be yourself” in your ministry, not to be a cookie-cutter or a copycat. While we certainly are influenced by particular elements and factors around us, that is a great reminder to mold them into something unique for you and for your circumstances. Don’t just steal what works for us, experiment and find what works for you. Thank you, Dr. Miller.
Capitol Men December 17, 2011
Posted by bdennert in Books.add a comment
As I have been branching out from Presidential biographies to more pieces discussing wider political issues in American history, I decided to pick up the book Capitol Men by Philip Dray at the Lisle Library. I don’t usually judge books by the covers, but it said on the cover “Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize” so I figured that it would have to be good. To be honest, it wasn’t overly gripping like some other books where I just can’t seem to put it down; it was good, not great (probably why it was a finalist rather than the winner of the prize!). What was it about? Well, it is about Reconstruction in the South post-Civil War through focusing on the lives of the first African-American Congressmen. I really feel like I must have been sleeping during the unit on Reconstruction in high school or it may have been during wrestling season when I was distracted, but this period is fascinating, both for what happened and what was overturned. There were a number of former slaves as well as free blacks who became representatives, senators, governors, or state congressmen, with South Carolina having a number of them. One thing to keep in mind was that with the freeing of slaves, the 3/5 compromise (that slaves count as 3/5 for the purpose of representation in the House) was no longer valid, meaning the South had MORE people now and that in some cases, a large number of them were not white. The country really could have been reshaped in light of this new reality; I never realized how pivotal this time was/could have been. The sad thing is that much of the work of someCongressmen (black and white) during this period would be overturned, dismantled, and ignored until almost 100 years later with the Civil Rights Movement. In some ways, the leaders of the movement were seeking to recapture the gains that were quickly lost. There were even some precursors to the bus boycotts and voter drives of the Civil Rights movement.
The book chronicles the lives and rise of many of these leaders. I think Dray could have helped the reader with a more clear layout of how he was going to discuss the leaders and a glossary of significant figures in the front of the book–it would have helped me follow the book better and engage in the stories. It was an odd mixture of interrelated stories while also being somewhat separate. There were many fascinating and new stories, from a slave stealing a boat from the Confederacy during the War to the “Exodusting” of blacks out of the South to the West. There were also many tragic incidents of violence, disputed elections, and political corruption. All elements of American history not remembered by this history buff nor seemingly well covered in an AP US History class.
In reading about Reconstruction an the post-Civil War era, I have come to have an even greater appreciation for Lincoln’s presidency. The mishandling of the numerous presidents who preceded him led to the war, and the mishandling of affairs by the presidents who followed (including, ironically, Grant, the War hero) create the new reality of the country. Perhaps Lincoln wasn’t as good as many thought but rather just a lot better than the rest of the presidents from 1840-1900.
Corporal Punishment in the Bible December 13, 2011
Posted by bdennert in Books, Ethics, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
Some writers not only are unafraid of controversy but actually seem drawn to controversial topics and issues. I think William J. Webb is one of them, as his ideas of biblical interpretation displayed in Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals and his contribution in Four Views on Moving from the Bible to Theology have sparked much reaction in Evangelical circles and are likely not to please people on the left or on the right. His Corporal Punishment in the Bible: A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic for Troubling Texts is another book that steps into a minefield of issues and likely to be embraced by some and rejected by others. I suspect that the visceral responses of many will likely cause the potential contribution of the book to be overlooked. In this book, Webb applies the redemptive-movement approach to Scripture developed in the aforementioned books to texts concerning punishment and discipline. While it is an academic book in one sense, looking at the texts and seeking to develop ways to understand them, there is also an intensely personal side of the work, as Webb mentions the development of his own views on punishment (which were greatly affected by his experience of having a special needs child) and includes a postscript called “An Unplanned Parenting Journey” that give some practical advice to parents on how to discipline children without using corporal methods. That last statement reveals the thesis of the book.
Webb essentially argues that the Bible sets a trajectory that leads to the abandonment of corporal punishment. Since Webb sees the Bible setting this trajcetory, one can uses other methods and maintain that one is seeking to be faithful to Scripture. At the beginning of the book, Webb discusses many advocates of coporal discipline (e.g., Focus on the Family) and notes how the approach to corporal punishment adopted by these advocates is not a straight reading of Scripture. In particular, he notes 7 aspects that differ in their approach from the biblical texts: age limitations, the number of lashes or strokes, the bodily location of the beating, the resultant bruising, welts, and wounds; the instrument of discipline, the frequency of beatings and offenses punishable, and the emotive disposition of the parents (list on p. 28, discussions pp. 28-52). Webb aims to show that these advocates of “biblical” punishment are not as “bibilcal” as they maintain; they are adapting and applying the Bible in certain ways. Webb wants to know what these ways are and engage in a discussion that makes explicit how to be “biblical” today. He then argues, after a case study on slavery, that placing the Bible within its historical and cultural context reveals a kinder approach to discipline then in the ancient world.
A couple of other interesting notes in Webb’s argument is that texts mandating adult corporal punishment are not typically viewed by evangelicals as appropriate, something I had not considered before. The implication would be why some of these texts are followed but not other one? The second other point of interest is from Webb’s experience of having a child whose development does not progress beyond a certain age. If spanking is appropriate for young children because they cannot understand, would it be then be appropriate for someone whose coginitive level remains in that age frame? Webb says our natural inclination is no, which he thinks then raises the question of whether development is an appropriate way to ever justify corporal punishment.
One can raise questions about Webb’s reading of some texts or about his approach to applying Scripture (I am not totally convinced by it, particularly because the knowledge assumed about the historical and cultural context would seem to make it a bit of an elist hermeneutic)–and I say that with no disrespect towards Dr. Webb, but merely as a someone who believes in the continual need for discussion (he seems to be a kind man and acknowledged an essay I published discussing his work). The question that Webb raises and that may need more examination by all is what the enduring principle behind “Spare the rod, spoil the child” is, a question that can even be separated from his approach to Scripture. Is this verse pointing to the need for discipline of children or of corporal punishment? And on what basis does one come to their conclusion? Does the text mandate corporal punishment or simply allow it (if it is the best method)? If nothing else, the book is a helpful reminder to raise questions about people saying something is “biblical” and making sure it is. As a new parent, I also suspect the ideas in the postscript could be helpful for parents regardless of their position on corporal punishment.
Impeached November 18, 2011
Posted by bdennert in Books.add a comment
I am not sure if it was my Springfield trip a number of months ago or if it is a natural chronological move, but I have been interested in the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction lately. This led me to move a bit outside of my reading of Presidential biographies, though still within the same general stream as I read Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy by David O. Stewart. As the title indicates, this is not a biography of Johnson but an in-depth discussion of his impeachment trial. I remember doing a project on Johnson back in elementary school because I thought it was interesting to note that he was the only president who was impeached (obviously, this was in the pre-Clinton era), but I didn’t remember many details, so it was good to see it unfold, though Stewart probably gave me more details that I would have liked. In a nutshell, Johnson was impeached on a technicality, on violating an intricate law somewhat designed to limit executive power that would later be deemed unconstitutional. The Senate fell one vote short of removing him from office, a vote never proven
to be tainted by corruption but with bribes and promises swirling around it. He then finished out the last few months of his term.
Stewart tries to indicate through his telling of the Johnson impeachment trial that the narrative is not what is often thought; that Johnson was a not an innocent party that was being opposed by an aggressive Congress trying to limit and usurp the powers of the executive office. Stewart seeks to show that Johnson was not following Lincoln’s legacy, that he was not really trying to heal the country after the Civil War but actually further enflaming it: immediately after the war he wanted Confederates hung, but then shortly thereafter, he basically allowed them to restore the governments they had without ensuring rights or the well-being of the freed slaves. As executive, he threw a wrench in reconstruction, which Congress sought to remedy (and could in part because of their ability to overturn vetoes, but damages was certainly done as seen by the need for the Civil Rights Movement). Johnson had a way of making people mad and was not willing to compromise or being a conciliatory person. I would agree with Stewart on his portrayal of Johnson (it fits what I have seen in other books), but I wonder if Stewart is arguing against an older paradigm of Johnson, one that has since fallen out of favor. Stewart’s retelling was thus not as “radical” as he makes it sound, at least not to me.
What I was struck by, and Stewart highlights, is how Congress sought to use constitutional means to rid themselves of a president they felt was not only incompetent and dreadful, but also betraying the legacy of the Civil War. It was not through violence or assassination like can happen in other lands. While Johnson was not removed (and who knows if his replacement would have been a good president!), the impeachment process seems to have halted some of Johnson’s antics in office; he did not reverse course, but he seems to moderate himself. So, while the impeachment process failed, it did have some positive impact, so the process once again shows wise planning in the US constitution. While I see many problems in America and American politics, I am thankful for our legacy of peaceful transfers of power and the restraints placed upon different branches, limiting the damage done by incompetent presidents or power-hungry representatives. We are not perfect but we could be a lot worse.
Jefferson Davis, American November 5, 2011
Posted by bdennert in Uncategorized.add a comment
I ventured a bit out of my usual reading of biographies of American presidents to read this one that was in the same section: Jefferson Davis, America by William J. Cooper, Jr. I figured Davis wasn’t a US President, but his role as the president of the Confederate States of America has always been something fascinating to me. I really didn’t know anything about him, other than that he served in the Mexican-American War and that he was Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce (one of those presidents we try to forget!). Ironically, while Davis was the Confederacy’s president and in some ways became their “martyr” (see below on his imprisonment), General Lee seems to be the patron saint of the Confederacy. Case in point: Bo and Luke Duke did not drive the “Jefferson Davis.” So, I thought it would be interesting to know more about this figure in American history, particularly after recently reading a biography of U.S. Grant.
As the title might indicate, a primary thrust in Cooper’s argument is that Davis felt like he was a true American; he greatly valued the United States of America and his primary claim to fame as the president of the Confederacy can obscure that fact. Among the leaders of the Confederacy, Davis was a moderate man, one who defended the right to secede from the Union but was not actively advocating for it as many others did. He was chosen as the president in large part because of his moderate position. He and the Confederates believed that they were the ones who were truly upholding the Constitution, while the Union/Northerners were seeking to change it and/or not follow it. Therefore, the Confederates thought that they were the “Continuing” form of the United States (though I don’t think they labeled themselves as such), withdrawing because the other states were leaving behind their convictions (I found the rhetoric surprisingly similar to that of the “Continuing” Presyberian church that would become the Presbyterian Church in America). The Confederacy even tried to follow George Washington’s advice against politilcal parties, a practice that Cooper notes may have actually led in part to some of the political troubles of the South. After the Civil War, Davis was arrested and imprisoned awaiting trial on treason, charges for which he was never tried as in some ways it would seem that an acquittal in this case could show that the South had done nothing wrong in seceding (the War therefore being Northern aggression). Davis did not believe that he did anything wrong and was fine with going through the judicial process. In addition, while preserving the legacy of the Confederacy through some writing projects, Davis also would eventually seem to be a supporter of the “New South” and seek to foster better relations between the North and the South. In discussing this, Cooper once again shows that Davis loved the United States. Not surprisingly, Davis thought that slavery was not just acceptable but an approved way of life, though he did have a close relationship with one of his slaves, James Pemberton.
Other interesting and probably totally random issues: he was from Mississippi (in case you ever wonder) and he married Zachary Taylor’s (American general and then President for a time, as he died in office) daughter. Tragically, Davis and the former Ms. Taylor contracted malaria and she died shortly after they were married(he would fight battles with this and other diseases throughout his life). I also wondered in reading the book if Lincoln may at times get too much credit for the victory of the Union and if Davis might get too much blame for the defeat of the Confederacy. That is, if the roles were reversed, I wonder if the result would have been the same, as Davis faced many challenges in addition to probably mismanaging the war. On the whole, I enjoyed learning more about a name I knew from history class.
Ulysses S. Grant: Solider & President September 24, 2011
Posted by bdennert in Books.add a comment
My latest presidential read was Ulysses S. Grant: Solider & President by Geoffrey Perret. I picked this book up in part for 2 reasons: 1) my memory of Grant’s presidency from high school was that he was a pretty poor president, riddled with scandal and border-line incompetency due to alcoholism and political naivety; and 2) the fact that Grant’s memoirs are in some ways an American literacy classic. How could these two things be true? I wanted to get a closer look at his life. Many of my preconceived notions about Grant were challenged in this book. I thought of him as the stereotypical fat, vulgar, foolish, drunkard. Perret, however, points out that Grant’s build was on the smaller side (which may have explained his problems with the bottle). His drinking seems to have been fueled by war, as he was separated from his wife and stable conditions (he had even joined a temperance society between his time in the Mexican-American War and Civil War; he fell off the wagon during the war). He seems to have understood war a lot better than his peers, and his method of fighting, while brutal in some ways, may have ended war sooner. He was fairly well educated. While ridden with scandal, this was not Grant’s desire, as he even hoped to fix things; his alienation of other leaders by not playing the political game may have inadvertently led to some of these problems. In some ways, Perret seems to present an apologetic for Grant (he deals with certain historical negative opinions about Grant throughout the book). Sometimes Perret seems to excuse Grant’s shortcomings; perhaps too many times. I suspect this is part of an attempt to rehabilitate Grant’s image. Perret is not quite a hagiographer who makes Grant look perfect (he notes that Grant had little sense with money), but he does seek to make him look better than the truth may be. While Perret may go too far, his work is a good reminder about the complexity of life, that many of our shortcomings are part of a web of factors. By focusing on Grant’s family, Perret shows that Grant was in some ways an odd mix of his grandfather and his father. This was not my favorite presidential read; perhaps another Grant biography would have been better fit (this is what happens through random choice at the Lisle Library!). Perhaps the thing that I found least rewarding was much of the book chronicles Grant’s exploits in the Civil War; this is where he became famous (a true American hero/celebrity) so those interested in Grant because of the Civil War would find it interesting, but for myself, who prefers political maneuvering over wars and battles, it was not that compelling (more maps would have helped me keep straight what was going on). Perhaps it does tell us something, though, that his 4 years in the war are more of the book than his 8 years in the White House. He was a great general, but he was a poor politician. There also is irony that a man who was so immensely popular and idolized during his lifetime has proved to be much less popular in the eyes of historians. Maybe it is a reminder that what is popular is often not what is best or truly lasting.
Grace, Still Amazing Me! September 2, 2011
Posted by bdennert in Books, Spirituality.add a comment
I recently read Chuck Swindoll’s Grace Awakening, figuring it would be a quick read before bed (with a down-to-earth style) and would prevent me from going to the library to get a new one. It was a good wakeup call for a couple of different reasons. First of all, how can reading about grace ever not be a good thing? We live in a graceless world but we have a message of grace, meaning that we must always return to this message if we are going to live as grace people. Discussing grace always leads to humility and to great thanks. While the book was not groundbreaking for me, it was a welcomed reminder of the transformative power and wonderful truth of grace. In addition to discussing grace and the way it combats legalism, Swindoll seeks to apply grace to various different issues as well, such as marriage, ministry, disagreements, giving, Christian freedom, and life in community. He does so in a fairly homiletical way, looking at key passages and giving helpful illustrations.
In addition to the joy of reading about grace, it also served as a bit of a rebuke to me. Because of some issues in my own life, there are some different associations that I make that are probably unfair. One is that I can associate the people I read or held in high esteem when I was in college with my own struggles, particularly my legalistic nature (I am a grace killer!). I guess I can throw the baby out with the bathwater when I think that these people are preaching the message that I was hearing at times or at least lived out. In contrast, the very concept of Swindoll’s book is at the heart of what I have been trying to do for years: living out grace. When I take a longer look back at my time in college, however, I realize that it was through these teachers, people like Swindoll, that I first became obsessed with grace and that was the time when I really starting trying to live by grace. It is a hard thing to do and it takes some time to break old habits. That is what was happening. It was not Swindoll, it was me! In effect, I had to give grace to him!
It goes back to the pattern of the pendulum that I can have with teachers, people, and ideas. I eat up someone’s teaching. Then something happens, either I get sick of the person through overload, find some flaw in them, or just jump to the next “new” thing (or new at least to me). I get a bad attitude towards them. Eventually, something causes me to return to their work and I enjoy it, finding it encouraging. I guess this is one more thing that grace needs to transform, to learn how to view others properly.
