Here's my first list. I thought of doing this when my aunt was very interested in a great book (The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton) that I got for Christmas, and I thought about the other books that I had read that lead me to want that book in the first place.
A great many of the books that have been very enjoyable to read and helpful in forming my understanding of the world through a Christian lens were written by C.S. Lewis. In this first book review (the first of many, I'm sure), I'll list some of Lewis' books that I think are a good place to start if you're interested in reading about Christianity.
If you'd like to just read an entry level treatise on what Christianity is and how it makes sense of the world, read Mere Christianity. For a more personal story from Lewis, read Surprised by Joy, Lewis' account of how he came to be a Christian. It gives some great biographical info as well as a peek into the way that brilliant mind works. Lewis' Pilgrim's Regress is a fictional tale of a young man who wades through the dominant philosophies of western civilizations and arrives at Christianity at last, and mirrors Lewis' own journey.
Another good story, and probably Lewis' most popular work, is the Chronicles of Narnia series. Its presentation of a lion named Aslan reclaiming a magical land corrupted by evil is a great allegorical (although Lewis himself resisted that word) picture of our own history and plight. There are 7 books in the series, and Lewis wrote them in a particular order, even though the events in books 5 and 6 do not follow the chronology of the story. Unfortunately, recent publications have reordered the books to follow a linear chronology, and I think that this does a lot of damage to the way that Lewis wanted the story to be read. If you do read a recent edition, read them in the original order (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; Prince Caspian; The Voyage of the Dawn Treader; The Silver Chair; The Horse and His Boy; The Magician's Nephew; The Last Battle) and you'll enjoy it much more!
Less well known but every bit as good are the three books that make up what has come to be known as Lewis' Space Trilogy. The first book is Out of the Silent Planet, and imagines a journey to another world with a very old history where the inhabitants never rebelled against God, and the struggle to keep evil (from earth) from corrupting their civilization. The second book, Perelandra, presents a world that is just beginning, and the first couple are presented with the same temptation as Adam and Eve were... will they succumb? The last book, That Hideous Strength, depicts secular academia leading a revolt against humanity, ostensibly in its service, and the resistance that seems doomed to failure. These books are in some way Lewis' response to the unquestioned assumptions that plague secular science-fiction: "progress" is inevitable (no racism in Star Trek!) and unquestionably good, "religion" and "tradition" as the enemies of "science," and the hope put into the intelligentsia for the future of mankind.
Lewis takes on some of the big questions that everybody asks in Miracles and The Problem of Pain. Miracles tackles the assumption that although people in Biblical times could believe in miracles, it is a bit absurd to ask modern humanity to believe in them anymore now that we are so scientifically advanced and know better. The Problem of Pain addresses the age-old question: How can a good God allow such terrible things to happen to good (or at least, not totally evil) people? I heartily recommend both of these great books.
For bite-size Lewis, try God in the Dock or Christian Reflections. These two books are collections of letters, essays, or other correspondence by Lewis on a variety of topics Many of the topics he writes on in these books are explored more fully in his longer works, but some of them are unique and give some interesting dimension to a picture of the world as Lewis understands it from unexpected angles.
The Four Loves is a fantastic book that explores the human experience of love, and tries to find a way to understand what God reveals to us when he claims that word as a name for himself.
The two most dangerous attitudes we can have about devils, according to Lewis, is to harbor an unhealthy fascination with them or to assume that they don't exist. The Screwtape Letters is a wonderful book which Lewis writes in the form of correspondence between Screwtape, a senior demon, and his underling (and nephew) Wormwood. Screwtape counsels Wormwood to use some techniques when discouraging his human charge away from a Christian life that are unexpected and often uncomfortably close to home. Lewis said this was his least favorite book to write, since it was tiring and emotionally discouraging to have to keep putting himself in a mindset violently oppossed to everything he holds true.
Finally, Till We Have Faces is an amazing work of fiction, where Lewis reworks the ancient Greek myth of Cupid and Psyche into an exposition of how our pride and merely human love can lead us to hurt the one's we claim to love the most, and reject the love we so desperately need.
So there you have it. Start reading!
- "Safe?.... Of course he's not safe. But he's good..." (I'm cheating; this one's from a book, soon to be released as a movie!)
Monday, January 31, 2005
Thursday, January 27, 2005
bitter irony
You've probably heard or read about the man who caused a huge train accident in LA when he parked his SUV on the tracks.
Apparently, he intended to commit suicide by letting the train hit him in his vehicle. At the last moment, however, he changed his mind and exited the vehicle. When the train hit the empty vehicle, it derailed and headed straight for an oncoming train going in the other direction, hit that train, and finally crashed into an empty, "parked" freight train.
The man has been charged with 10 counts of murder for deaths sustained in the crash, and the D.A. has included "special circumstances" in the charges which makes him eligible for the death penalty.
This case is certainly tragic, and I do not in any way want to say that the horrific results of this man's thoughtless, self-centered, and inhuman act do not merit the harshest penalties that society hands out in these cases. I also do not want to use this case as a place to debate the death penalty... well, not really.
I do want to take this example and use it as an opportunity to discuss the idea of "justice" in our society, and to hold it up against what the word "justice" actually means.
In our society, we have courts and a legal system that are designed to deliver justice. In some cases, justice involves compensation to an injured party for damages sustained. By and large, this compensation takes a monetary form, even if the original damages were not monetary in nature. "Justice" is done when the perpetrator renders back to their victim a sum of money equal in value to the amount of harm that they caused.
Obviously, we're going to run into problems when the damages were not monetary in nature. If I stole $5,000 from you, it would be just if you returned $5,000 to me (plus interest, I suppose, to make it neater). But what if it was not money that was lost, but a limb, or a life, or an opportunity, time, or trust? Can the courts mandate a return to the victim of the 3 years with their children they lost because of false imprisonment, or the ability to cheerfuly give to a charity without fear of it being a swindle, or the lost moments of holding an infant daughter because of the loss of a limb, or her life lost because of an industrial accident, or his life lost because of pollutants poisoning the groundwater, or the life of a child lost because of a drunk driver? We award vast sums of money, because ultimately, that is the limit of what our justice system can do. We don't have the ability to execute real justice and return the irreplacable items, time, experiences or people who have been lost, so we just keep piling on the money, blinding ourselves to our impotence to right wrongs in any sort of meaningful way.
In other cases, we seek "justice" by punishing those who have done wrong in other ways: by taking away their liberty in jail or in subtler ways (e.g. restricting their freedom of employment, voting, travel, etc.), or by even taking their lives, in the most severe cases.
In these cases, I think that reasonable people can hold the opinion that some people actually deserve to lose their lives because of the intense evil of their actions, and that to end their lives is an act of "justice," by which I mean rendering unto someone the appropriate consequence which their actions merit. The trouble is, that's only half of justice. The other half would render back to their victims their lives or innocence, or expunge their past from pain and awful memories. Isn't this what they deserve? Alas, it is not in our power to do these things.
What results is a justice system that is lopsided. In seeking to restore the balance of justice and put things back to the way they ought to be, we find that the only way we can try to balance the scales is to heap death and imprisonment onto one side of the scales, since we are unable to remove it from the other. In the final analysis, we cannot erase the scars of evil, but we can spread it's gruesome consequences back onto the perpetrators.
I'm not saying that this is wrong, and we should never do anything. I'm saying that it's the best we can do, and we should always be mournful and dissatisfied with human efforts. And I think we should be more humble, too. It's in our nature to want to... actually, to need to do something, anything to pursue justice when we see things that are so obviously not the way they're supposed to be. We need to realize that our best efforts are not enough, and often, our best efforts just make things worse.
There's a great moment in the Lord of the Rings (the book, not the movie... okay it's in the movie, too, but it was in the book first!) Where Frodo tells Gandalf that he thinks that Gollum deserves to die. Gandalf replies that he's probably right... but there are also many that die who deserve life. "Can you give it to them? Do not be so swift to hand out pain and death, Master Frodo."
The "Bitter Irony" I reference in my header is that this man in LA decided to park his car on the railroad tracks because he wanted to end his life. Even though he changed his mind at the last minute, wounds on his wrists and chest indicate that this was not his only failed attempt, and will likely not be his last. Ironically, the most "justice" we can mete out as society is to do for this man what he desired to do but found himself unable to do, that is, to end his life, while doing nothing to restore the lives of his victims. This is the uppermost limit of human justice. Don't you long for something more?
- "He says that he also is a king, and he also will not listen to what you say."
Apparently, he intended to commit suicide by letting the train hit him in his vehicle. At the last moment, however, he changed his mind and exited the vehicle. When the train hit the empty vehicle, it derailed and headed straight for an oncoming train going in the other direction, hit that train, and finally crashed into an empty, "parked" freight train.
The man has been charged with 10 counts of murder for deaths sustained in the crash, and the D.A. has included "special circumstances" in the charges which makes him eligible for the death penalty.
This case is certainly tragic, and I do not in any way want to say that the horrific results of this man's thoughtless, self-centered, and inhuman act do not merit the harshest penalties that society hands out in these cases. I also do not want to use this case as a place to debate the death penalty... well, not really.
I do want to take this example and use it as an opportunity to discuss the idea of "justice" in our society, and to hold it up against what the word "justice" actually means.
In our society, we have courts and a legal system that are designed to deliver justice. In some cases, justice involves compensation to an injured party for damages sustained. By and large, this compensation takes a monetary form, even if the original damages were not monetary in nature. "Justice" is done when the perpetrator renders back to their victim a sum of money equal in value to the amount of harm that they caused.
Obviously, we're going to run into problems when the damages were not monetary in nature. If I stole $5,000 from you, it would be just if you returned $5,000 to me (plus interest, I suppose, to make it neater). But what if it was not money that was lost, but a limb, or a life, or an opportunity, time, or trust? Can the courts mandate a return to the victim of the 3 years with their children they lost because of false imprisonment, or the ability to cheerfuly give to a charity without fear of it being a swindle, or the lost moments of holding an infant daughter because of the loss of a limb, or her life lost because of an industrial accident, or his life lost because of pollutants poisoning the groundwater, or the life of a child lost because of a drunk driver? We award vast sums of money, because ultimately, that is the limit of what our justice system can do. We don't have the ability to execute real justice and return the irreplacable items, time, experiences or people who have been lost, so we just keep piling on the money, blinding ourselves to our impotence to right wrongs in any sort of meaningful way.
In other cases, we seek "justice" by punishing those who have done wrong in other ways: by taking away their liberty in jail or in subtler ways (e.g. restricting their freedom of employment, voting, travel, etc.), or by even taking their lives, in the most severe cases.
In these cases, I think that reasonable people can hold the opinion that some people actually deserve to lose their lives because of the intense evil of their actions, and that to end their lives is an act of "justice," by which I mean rendering unto someone the appropriate consequence which their actions merit. The trouble is, that's only half of justice. The other half would render back to their victims their lives or innocence, or expunge their past from pain and awful memories. Isn't this what they deserve? Alas, it is not in our power to do these things.
What results is a justice system that is lopsided. In seeking to restore the balance of justice and put things back to the way they ought to be, we find that the only way we can try to balance the scales is to heap death and imprisonment onto one side of the scales, since we are unable to remove it from the other. In the final analysis, we cannot erase the scars of evil, but we can spread it's gruesome consequences back onto the perpetrators.
I'm not saying that this is wrong, and we should never do anything. I'm saying that it's the best we can do, and we should always be mournful and dissatisfied with human efforts. And I think we should be more humble, too. It's in our nature to want to... actually, to need to do something, anything to pursue justice when we see things that are so obviously not the way they're supposed to be. We need to realize that our best efforts are not enough, and often, our best efforts just make things worse.
There's a great moment in the Lord of the Rings (the book, not the movie... okay it's in the movie, too, but it was in the book first!) Where Frodo tells Gandalf that he thinks that Gollum deserves to die. Gandalf replies that he's probably right... but there are also many that die who deserve life. "Can you give it to them? Do not be so swift to hand out pain and death, Master Frodo."
The "Bitter Irony" I reference in my header is that this man in LA decided to park his car on the railroad tracks because he wanted to end his life. Even though he changed his mind at the last minute, wounds on his wrists and chest indicate that this was not his only failed attempt, and will likely not be his last. Ironically, the most "justice" we can mete out as society is to do for this man what he desired to do but found himself unable to do, that is, to end his life, while doing nothing to restore the lives of his victims. This is the uppermost limit of human justice. Don't you long for something more?
- "He says that he also is a king, and he also will not listen to what you say."
Friday, January 21, 2005
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
Okay, I hope that I don't need to tell you who I'm quoting.
Anyway, when I heard this, I wanted to yell in exasperation. Now, I have a blog, so here I go!
The faulty logic in this statement presupposes an issue in which there are only two possible positions. Two forces against which only one form of resistance is possible. I thought of a couple of examples to illustrate the absurdity of this frame of mind.
First off, let's visit the schoolyard. We've all been in a situation where two of our friends are fighting... usually over something stupid. Anyway, you always end up in the situation where one of them tries to force you to "choose sides." This is incredibly demeaning to both parties. It reduces a complex person and rich relationships to a single issue. You are asked to consider a person who is your friend to be nothing more than "the enemy of _________," and to filter all aspects of your relationship with them through this very narrow issue. It strips them of their identity as an individual, and discounts all of the history and common experiences that make up a real friendship. When you're in that situation, don't you want to say, "I'm not going to choose sides: you're both my friends, and you need to work this out between yourselves."
So, what am I saying? People should be friends with the US and with the terrorists? No... let me give you another example that illustrates my point better.
WWII. Hitler attacks Russia, breaking his promise to Stalin. Can you imagine Stalin saying, "If you're not with us, you're with Hitler"? Can you imagine a reasonable person completely detesting Hitler and his agenda, and wanting nothing more than to overthrow his leadership, defeat his armed forces, and liberate those under his oppression... but not being huge fans of Joe Stalin, either?
I mean, Stalin was not a good guy. But we had to defeat Hitler, so we went along with him, and sowed the seeds of the cold war and set the stage for repressive regimes and the loss of human rights for millions of people for decades to come.
That old philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has gotten us into trouble again and again: in Latin America, in the Middle East, in the cold war and continuing in those regions today, etc.
So, what do we do? Do we wave our flag because we're afraid to be accussed of "providing aid and comfort to the enemy"? Do we vote for W because he's the only force for good in a world of pure evil?
Guess what? I'm not going to give you an answer. I just want to let you know that it's okay for you to ask the question!
- "Be excellent to each other... and party on, dudes!"
Anyway, when I heard this, I wanted to yell in exasperation. Now, I have a blog, so here I go!
The faulty logic in this statement presupposes an issue in which there are only two possible positions. Two forces against which only one form of resistance is possible. I thought of a couple of examples to illustrate the absurdity of this frame of mind.
First off, let's visit the schoolyard. We've all been in a situation where two of our friends are fighting... usually over something stupid. Anyway, you always end up in the situation where one of them tries to force you to "choose sides." This is incredibly demeaning to both parties. It reduces a complex person and rich relationships to a single issue. You are asked to consider a person who is your friend to be nothing more than "the enemy of _________," and to filter all aspects of your relationship with them through this very narrow issue. It strips them of their identity as an individual, and discounts all of the history and common experiences that make up a real friendship. When you're in that situation, don't you want to say, "I'm not going to choose sides: you're both my friends, and you need to work this out between yourselves."
So, what am I saying? People should be friends with the US and with the terrorists? No... let me give you another example that illustrates my point better.
WWII. Hitler attacks Russia, breaking his promise to Stalin. Can you imagine Stalin saying, "If you're not with us, you're with Hitler"? Can you imagine a reasonable person completely detesting Hitler and his agenda, and wanting nothing more than to overthrow his leadership, defeat his armed forces, and liberate those under his oppression... but not being huge fans of Joe Stalin, either?
I mean, Stalin was not a good guy. But we had to defeat Hitler, so we went along with him, and sowed the seeds of the cold war and set the stage for repressive regimes and the loss of human rights for millions of people for decades to come.
That old philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has gotten us into trouble again and again: in Latin America, in the Middle East, in the cold war and continuing in those regions today, etc.
So, what do we do? Do we wave our flag because we're afraid to be accussed of "providing aid and comfort to the enemy"? Do we vote for W because he's the only force for good in a world of pure evil?
Guess what? I'm not going to give you an answer. I just want to let you know that it's okay for you to ask the question!
- "Be excellent to each other... and party on, dudes!"
Why blog now?
All the cool kids are doing it!
Well, at least one is... my brother, Sean. The fact that I consider him to be cool may reflect poorly on me or not... depending on how well you know him.
Anyway, my blog will not be as cool as his, since my music list would consist of U2 and Tchaikovsky, and I watch about 0.6 movies per year.
So, from time to time, I may post something that I think is cool and think you might think is cool, too.
Most of the time, however, I'm going to probably end up using this blog as a place to rant. Every once in a while - actually, several times a day - I hear something that makes me want to yell "Oh, give me a break!" or "Liar!" (my parents brought me up not to use profanity) from advertisers, politicians, or "they."
So, this blog is going to be kind of a form of therapy for me, since I need to yell at the world sometimes just to remind myself what's true when the air is full of attractive lies.
If you happen to be passing under my window and something I yell makes you go, "huh," then I'll be pleased. If you think, "that guy's a nut!," please feel free to engage in a dialogue by commenting, rather than calling the police.
Oh, yeah, I'll be ending my posts with some of my favorite movie quotes. Bonus points if you know the movie. (Bonus points are not redeemable for cash or prizes... sorry)
- "Why is everything so heavy in the future?"
Well, at least one is... my brother, Sean. The fact that I consider him to be cool may reflect poorly on me or not... depending on how well you know him.
Anyway, my blog will not be as cool as his, since my music list would consist of U2 and Tchaikovsky, and I watch about 0.6 movies per year.
So, from time to time, I may post something that I think is cool and think you might think is cool, too.
Most of the time, however, I'm going to probably end up using this blog as a place to rant. Every once in a while - actually, several times a day - I hear something that makes me want to yell "Oh, give me a break!" or "Liar!" (my parents brought me up not to use profanity) from advertisers, politicians, or "they."
So, this blog is going to be kind of a form of therapy for me, since I need to yell at the world sometimes just to remind myself what's true when the air is full of attractive lies.
If you happen to be passing under my window and something I yell makes you go, "huh," then I'll be pleased. If you think, "that guy's a nut!," please feel free to engage in a dialogue by commenting, rather than calling the police.
Oh, yeah, I'll be ending my posts with some of my favorite movie quotes. Bonus points if you know the movie. (Bonus points are not redeemable for cash or prizes... sorry)
- "Why is everything so heavy in the future?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)