How (Not) to be Secular--A Review

I’m not the first person to say this and I’m pretty sure I got this from someone else. So here goes: the great sin of our age isn’t that God’s dead, but that God’s trivial. He just doesn’t matter. “There is no God” is more than atheistic fiat. It’s the de facto way American culture works. We may give attention to him here and there but frankly, we don’t pay much attention. We give him his due, sort of, kind of, maybe—not really. It affects everything from what we spend our money on, to justice issues, to race relationships, to what we think about in our spare time. He’s just  not really considered.

I recently finished a book entitled How (Not) to be Secular—Reading Charles Taylor, by Jamie Smith. Smith is fast becoming one of my favorite authors. He’s taken Charles Taylor's book A Secular Age, and made it understandable. Don’t think that reading Smith’s a whole lot easier! He’s got a glossary in the  back just to keep the reader informed. It’s not an easy read. But if you want to understand the western culture we live in, that’s the book to read. Smith comes from a distinctly Christian worldview (Smith is a Philosophy Professor at Calvin College) but the goal is to understand culture more than provide an apologetic for the Christian faith. Here are a couple of his main points:

In the modern secular world, we doubt transcendence. As a result, doubt and longing are the cross pressures (how people respond to the lack of transcendence) of the secular world. Pg. 11

What makes our modern secular age is the default assumptions about what is actually believable. Some people call this a plausibility factor. A God whose personally involved in our world just doesn't seem plausible (e.g. I think Leslie Newbigin came up with that idea in The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society). Pg. 19

There is no goal beyond human flourishing. Pg. 23

Civility becomes the naturalized, secularized sanctification. Pg. 43 

Humanism isn’t something we fell into but an achievement (Taylor makes this very clear and Jamie Smith captures it nicely). Pg. 57

We are buffered and sealed off from enchantment (the sense of God’s presence in the world) which also seals us off from meaning and significance. Consequently we no longer view this world as a “Cosmos” created by God but as a “Universe” that is cavernous, anonymous space. Pg. 64, 69

All of this secularization is rooted in assumptions! There really is no neutrality only “unthoughts” as he calls them (Taylor—and thus Smith in writing about Taylor—begins in the later part of the book to show the inconsistencies of secularism). Pg. 80f

The real consequence of secularism is that you have no reason for meaning, morality, or beauty (he calls this agency, ethics, and aesthetics). These become “cross pressures” on our secular culture which forces us to violate the logical implications of a secular culture devoid of God. Pg. 102

In fact, secularism faces the same dilemma Christianity faces: to attain any sort of moral aspiration requires you repress your ordinary human desires!  Pg. 112

Consequently, there really are moral codes in a secular culture and they focus on political correctness. Pg. 128.

It’s an incredible book. The last chapter Smith entitles “How (not) to be Secular” but does little to clearly actually unpack specifics of what that may look like. The reader has to figure it out on his or her own. But it's a great book, one that I will turn to regularly as I seek to be a good Christian leader in today's culture.

The Great Divorce--A Hellish Drama

I went to see the CS Lewis play, The Great Divorce, a while back. The play was off Broadway and in a very small theatre. What a production. It was amazing. If you’ve never read the book, consider it. It’s the story of a bus ride from hell to heaven. At the gates of heaven, each of the bus riders are given the opportunity to get into heaven, but all but one ultimately choose hell. I’ve read it over and over again. Lewis isn’t making a theological statement in the book. If you are reading it with that in mind, you are missing the point. But the characters at heaven’s gates are all very provocative!

For example: One of the characters was a grumbler. The actor walked across the stage mumbling and grumbling. The words cascaded from her lips like water over a water falls. Grumble grumble grumble. Over and over. Lewis used the character to highlight what happens when one becomes the qualities that get us into hell. He notes in the book, “The whole difficulty of understanding Hell is that the thing to be understood is so nearly Nothing. ….It begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps criticizing it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it, again. But [here Lewis warns us through the character, speaking in the book] there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine.”

Do you see what he’s saying? There may come a time when sin literally consumes us. It’s become so much apart of us, that it is us and when that happens, its hell. Hell is the by-product of what sin does to us—we become dehumanized and less of what we’ve been created to be to the point where we eternally disintegrate. Sobering!! The whole idea of hell as flames of fire is a metaphor for the eternal, non ending, disintegration of a human soul. Biblically it is searing heat and fire. It is outer darkness and isolation.  We never become what we were created to become: its utter, complete, and entire hopelessness. Lewis seeks to communicate that in the book.

After it was all done, we went out to dinner and discussed which character was most compelling. It made for good conversation. Read the book. The play was put on by The Fellowship of the Performing Arts which is a theatrical company committed to sharing theatre from a Christian worldview. The play, The Great Divorce, had taken several years to perfect and has gotten some great reviews. Max McClean, the founder, came out after the performance and took questions. There were three actors who played sixteen roles!! Honestly, living in NYC has its benefits when it comes to the arts. It was an amazing experience. 

The Human Stain--A Review

I just finished reading the novel The Human Stain by Philip Roth. The novel is set in a quaint New England college town, in Vermont. The story is intriguing in that it is framed in the late 90’s just following the President Clinton, Monica Lewinsky scandal and is told as if written by the writer Nathan Zuckerman. The plot is exceptional. There are more twists and turns in this novel than one could imagine. Roth is an excellent social critic. No one seems to escape his eye, especially the those in the tolerance movement.

Here is a short summary of what happens (Warning—I’m going to expose one major theme of the book so if you don’t want to lose the intrigue, stop reading this blog now). The distinguished and brilliant classics professor Coleman Silk offends some African American students, in his class by referring to them as spooks, as ghosts, since they’d never attended his lectures. The students got wind of it and charged him with racism. It’s a bogus charge, and one many on the faculty saw as such, but he ended up losing his job and his wife, over the whole affair. The book is built around that event and his reaction to it. What comes out, as the plot unfolds, is that everyone of the main characters has a secret. A secret so deep, and in some cases, so profoundly disturbing, that it acts like a stain on their humanity. It colors their perception of reality and yet also defines them. Roth’s secret is he’s African American himself. The term spooks couldn’t have possibly been used in a racially charged way. But no one ever finds out—except  Nathan Zuckerman.  

Roth, describing the stain through the lens of one of the characters says this, “The human stain…we leave a stain, we leave a trail, we leave our imprint. Impurity, cruelty, abuse, error, … there’s no other way to be here. Nothing to do with disobedience. Nothing to do with grace or salvation or redemption. It’s in everyone. Indwelling. Inherent. Defining. The stain that is there before its mark. The stain that proceeds disobedience and perplexes all explanation and understanding. It’s why all the cleansing is a joke…its inescapable.”(pg. 242)

I won’t take time to unpack the book. It is not an easy book to digest. I went on line after reading it to see what others had to say and one critic suggested that this was the kind of book that should be read by High School students. I don’t think so. It was pretty graphic at times but the critic was right in one regard. Everyone should understand that there truly is a human stain, and that stain, whether we are completely aware of it or not, is inescapable. You can’t get away from it. You can try to conceal it, but it won’t go away.

The question then becomes, how can it be dealt with? Roth offers no answer. The book is a description of human depravity and how that is used to hurt others and how that eventually hurts us. It’s thought provoking, I’ll say that. As a Christian, there is really only one answer—Jesus Christ. But there are a lot of people unwilling to consider that with all its ramifications.

The Light Princess and Other Stories--A Review

I just finished reading George MacDonald’s book, The Light Princess and Other Stories. MacDonald was a 19^th century pastor who got himself in trouble because he didn’t believe in hell. He became an inspiration for other well known authors such as Tolkien and CS Lewis. The Light Princess is a classic children’s book but the story is anything but childish.

A King and a Queen have a child, a beautiful baby girl. But the King, busy in the work of running the kingdom, forgot to invite his sister to the child’s christening. Enraged, the sister—who is also a witch—shows up anyway and casts a spell on the child which causes her to lose her sense of gravity. She simply floats. MacDonald paints the picture of life without gravity in the most humorous of terms. But the story line becomes more focused when as a beautiful young teenager, the princess discovers the only place she feels truly at home, a place where she has gravity, is when she’s in the water swimming. The family castle is built on a beautiful lake which the princess swims in constantly. She loves the lake more than anything else—it brings her back to earth. It makes her heart sing. She is normal in the lake. Soon a young prince emerges on the scene and falls deeply in love with the princess. He is overwhelmed with love and spends a great deal of time in the lake swimming with his beloved ‘light princess.’ MacDonald paints the picture of the love between the two in interesting terms. The princess is not nearly as interested in the prince, as he is in her, but that is what sets up the rest of the story and in the end, drives the author’s point home.

The story takes a sinister twist when the evil aunt is enraged that her revenge on the King and his family is being undermined by the lake, so in another fit of anger she casts a spell on the lake and it dries up. The princess is beside herself. The one thing that brought her life has now been taken away. In grief, she locks herself in her room and becomes despondent. The king sent envoys into the remaining parts of the lake to discover why it was disappearing and discovered, to their dismay, a gold plate at the bottom of the now shriveled lake with this inscription on it, “Death alone from death can save. Love is death, and so is brave. Love can fill the deepest grave. Love loves on beneath the waves.” This enigmatic statement was explained on the reverse side of the plate, “If the lake should disappear, they must find the hole through which the water ran. But it would be useless to stop it. There was one effectual mode—the body of a living man could stanch the flow. This man must give himself of his own will; and the lake must take his life as it filled. Otherwise the offering would be to no avail.”

As one would expect in a book like this, the prince found out and wondered if he should be the one to give his life on behalf of the princess. He visited a hermit for counsel before making his decision. His choice is cast in these terms, “She will die if I do not do it, and life would be nothing to me without her.” He chose to be the voluntary sacrifice. He simply made one condition, to have the princess be with him as he filled the hole and drowned. The princess indeed was with him, she fed him, she kissed him, but did so without feeling. However, as the water grew closer and closer to the prince, she came to love him more and more. When it went over his head, she could bear it no more. Shrieking, she jumped into the water, pulled him out of the water. Rushing him to the house they set about the impossible task of reviving him. Struck by grief, the light princess began to cry. She wept with such intensity that she created a flood of tears, she was wet with tears. She discovered that her true joy wasn’t in the lake, or even in having gravity, but in the one who gave his life so that she might be grounded. So it was that as she cried, he regained his breath and she her gravity and they lived happily ever after.

The spiritual background of this story should not be ignored. MacDonald used the story to describe the atonement found in the pages of the Old and New Testaments. Christ willingly and selflessly sacrifices his life for those who are selfish and self absorbed. When one comes to grips with the cost and love of Christ, he becomes our beloved as we are his. We repent of our sin and receive his love. It's a great story and since its rooted in history, its more than a fairy tale. Think about it.

The Picture of Dorian Gray--A Review

I read this book in 2010 and wrote a blog on it that I never posted. I referred to it in a recent post and then realized I'd never put it on my blog. So here it is--three years late!   

I recently read the book The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. It’s a book set in 19^th century England about a handsome young man whose good looks and persona inspire others to desire to be like him. For this reason, he can get whatever he wants, and he centers his existence around himself and his own pleasures. But in an odd twist of fate, Dorian Gray’s life takes a unique twist after an artist’s portrait captures his soul. So while on the outside, things look great: He’s energetic, creative, and appears youthful even as he ages; on the inside Dorian Gray’s soul begins to shrivel. And somehow little by little the painting mysteriously changes, revealing his self-absorbed and self-centered ugliness.

Fearful of being discovered for what he really is, Dorian Gray hides the painting in a room in his home to which he alone carries the key. Over the years he regularly visits the room and watches in horror as the painting, revealing the real Dorian Gray, becomes despicable, hideous, even grotesque. His withered soul was hidden from all but Dorian Gray himself, and it tormented him. The possibility that he would be revealed for what he really was, terrified him.

The Picture of Dorian Gray examines human nature through a modernistic lense. Several of the characters, including Dorian Gray himself, appear to take an objective view of life. Their perspective and emotion is tempered by their even keeled scientific method. But the sheer emotionally vacuous analysis of life events that, in the end, should pierce their souls does not. In the end, Dorian Gray lives out the Hedonism that his friends all wish they could but don’t or can’t. Ironically, those whose lives intersect closely with Dorian Gray end up devastated or destroyed. But none are as twisted and destroyed as Dorian himself. Without even knowing, it he destroys himself.

The book is worthwhile reading and made me wonder what realities there are about myself that can’t even be conveyed or even called blind spots because they are so hidden--not just from me but from others as well!  The moral seems to be: face what’s real, don’t hide it or it will destroy you. It did to Dorian Gray. 

Oscar Wildes must have been an interesting man. What secrets was he keeping about himself that he never revealed, yet in the end, destroyed him?

A Song for Lya--A Review

Just finished reading A Song for Lya by George R. R. Martin. It’s a 1973 Sci-Fi book about a couple of para normals (I think that’s what we call them today) who can read others thoughts, feelings, and past histories. They are not “normal” to use their vocabulary and they know it. They are registered Talents. As such, they have the capacity for deeper relational intimacy than a Normal. That’s a key part of the book. Relational intimacy is a huge theme in this book. It was given to me by a friend.

The book’s plot is about a group of humans on the planet of Shkeen somewhere in the universe. The Shkeen’s however, have a unique feature to their culture. They all commit suicide before they are fifty by means of a religion the humans called The Cult of the Union. Every Shkeen is a member of it. There are no heretics. They are Joined to the religion at forty and go to Final Union before age fifty. Missing out on Final Union is considered tragic. Final Union is consummated by submitting oneself to a parasite like creature called The Greeshka which, in the end, consumes the willing participant. The consummation completed, the Shkeen are in union with each other and with the universe in general and receive a universal feeling of love, good will, and understanding. The human authorities don’t mind Shkeen religion but some of the humans on the planet are now joining the religion and passing into Final Union. They call in the Talents to figure out why. That’s when things get interesting. I’ll not tell you how the book ends.

The book is fascinating. Their definition of morality is particularly interesting as their sense of righteousness insists that they love everyone. But, as the author states, “…they can’t do it, they’re too human…They wind up [for example] in monogamous relationships, because a really deep sex-sharing with one person is better than a million shallow physical things, in their culture. The ideal Shkeen would sex-share with everyone, with each of the unions being just as deep, but they can’t achieve that ideal.” The book is also a study on sex, and frankly, its shallowness as viewed by the west (my interpretation).

This book tugs at what we all want—intimacy, love, being understood and understanding, caring for one another, being happy for what fulfills ourselves and “the other”. It’s a pretty good book. It taps deep into human desire. But like all other religions, the Shkeen religion (and the one I think the author is advocating) is radically different from Christianity. Even in its Sci-Fi backdrop, the author couldn’t create something uniquely different from religion in general. For one thing, in the end, Final Union leads only to pantheism, where you are simply part of a greater whole—a body of nothingness which is something dream like, and relational, and loving, and caring. Its awful is to miss out on that. It is dark, lonely, unfulfilling—almost like hell without the punishment and fire parts. Interestingly enough, hell is described as outer darkness in the New Testament (Jude 6).

There’s also no resolution for their “immorality” however they define it. There is no atonement, no forgiveness, no resolution for the problem of evil, no judgment of evil, no righting of wrongs done. They become what they want to become through the Greeshka—the parasitic organism with no ability to think or feel—but apart from being consumed by it, that union, and the freedom and love that comes with it, doesn’t occur. It’s submitting to the Greeshka’s consumption and parasitic growth—it gets bigger as it consumes Shkeens—that brings relational wholeness and love.

I liked the book. But here is where Christianity and Shkeen religion diverge. In Christianity sin is dealt with by someone else. Sin is what keeps us from being everything we can be. Sin robs us of the our freedom—in fact it enslaves. In the Shkeen religion sin is present but frankly, never really addressed. There is no final judgment or escape from sin, there is no righting of all wrongs by a just and fair judge, there is just deep darkness and loneliness when Final Union is missed. Again, as in any other religion, its dependent on what you do to gain Final Union, whereas in Christianity, our union with God isn’t accomplished by something we do but by what Christ has done for us on the cross. Instead of consuming us, God in the person of Jesus comes to be consumed. Instead of becoming part of God, we enter what theologians call union with Christ through Gods Spirit, and worship a God who is much bigger than we are. Instead of something we do to gain great joy the joy comes from something God does for us, and from who he is. The celebration isn’t rooted in us joining to each other in some great Union—the Greeshka doesn’t think or live or interact, it just eats. But in Christianity, we are joined relationally to a God who at his root is love. Ironically, that union in Christianity is celebrated by eating and drinking of Jesus flesh and blood—also known as the Lords Supper, the Eucharist, or Communion (1 Cor 11:23-26).

I found the book intriguing. But there was no solution to the universal problem of evil, no recognition of the Holiness of God, and no sense that God is anything personal. But the idea that we can know, be known, and loved beyond our wildest imagination is compelling which is why the author wrote the book. Isn’t that what we want? To be fully known and fully loved and to do so with others. Only through the person of Jesus Christ will that actually take place. There is a great article in the NY Times August 21, 2013 entitled A Pact to Make the Heart Grow Fonder in the Fashion and Style section. Its about a couple that spent a year testing their love for one another. The relationship ended for a variety of reasons but it was a compelling compliment to the book.

For the record, sex played a big part in the authors attempt to explain intimacy. And interestingly enough, it proved faulty and incomplete. It makes me sad because there is so much more to love than sex. By the way, this is not an erotic book!

King Leopold's Ghost--A Review

I just finished reading the penetrating story of the material rape of the Belgian Congo in a book called King Leopold’s Ghost. It’s the history of how the greed of one charming man devastated a good portion of the African continent at the turn of the 20th century. Belgium’s King Leopold II bought into the colonizing whirlwind of the day, destroying African societies and killing millions of people in the process. He did this all for the sake of money, power, and colonial prestige. Sadly, he also did so in the name of philanthropy, Christianity and civilization. Pocketing millions of dollars, he built monuments to himself and his country on the backs of the native Congolese population. When they resisted, their spears and shields were no match for the sophisticated machine guns and weaponry of “civilized” Europe. Through forced slavery and despicable acts of injustice, Leopold, who never set foot in the Congo, forever changed central Africa.

It was through the primary intervention of one man, E.D. Morel, that the truth of Leopold’s activities were exposed. Morel, probably not a Christian, uncovered and publicized the atrocities that eventually led to the end of Leopold’s rule over the Congo. Morel had, as the author notes, both the media savvy and personal ability to publicize his message in a way that people came to acknowledge Leopold’s Congo for what it was—a form of tyranny and slavery.

The book has been a challenge to me on a number of fronts: Would I have had Morel’s courage to uncover the evil even if it cost me? Are there social injustices happening around me, which my eyes, being culturally conditioned as they are, do not see? Am I showing the kind of mercy that demonstrates that I’ve indeed become an object of God’s mercy because of the cross (cf. Matt 5:7)? Do I experience “mercy fatigue” because my response to the many opportunities to give or show mercy is rooted not in the grace of God but in my own moralistic tendencies?

Many of those who helped Morel expose Leopold’s Congo for what it was were missionaries who applied the gospel of grace to their lives and the situations around them. This book has made me think, once again, about how easy it is to be a follower of Jesus and yet not apply the gospel. Even some of the missionaries, it seems, had a subtle condescending attitude towards the African population. Read the book! It will make you think.

Book Review—Man Alive by G. K. Chesterton

I just finished reading the book, Man Alive. What a great book. The book is about one man, a guy named Innocent Smith, whose love for life prompts him to shoot at people (he’s an expert marksman and always seems to miss), remarry his wife over and over again, break into his own house, and pretty much shake up everyone he comes in contact with by his often bizarre behavior.

Smith’s unique journey to live life for all its worth begins in a college class where he is introduced to a nihilistic worldview. Coming to the end of himself, he would rather die than live a meaningless life. In a confrontation with his college professor he discovers, and to his amazement so does his professor, that life has meaning. It is worth living. He desires to be fully alive—thus the title of the book, “Man Alive.” Smith also helps others either embrace life or die. At one point, when confronting the reality that some people who live are, in fact, dead, Chesterton has one of his characters note, “We’ve been sitting with a ghost. ‘Blank’ (fill in the name by reading the story) died years ago.”

Chesterton is a Catholic and is known for his pithy sayings. Apparently years ago when a local newspaper posed the question, “What is wrong with the world?” Chesterton wrote a brief letter in response: “Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely yours. G. K. Chesterton.” I can read a book written by a guy like that! The book has many of these kinds of sayings in it. At one point he has one of his characters note, “Marriage is a duel to the death which no man of honour should decline.” I have found this to be often true! Another Chesterton quote from the book, "I refuse to die while I am still alive."

The story unpacks Chesterton’s worldview but it’s not a religious work. A thoughtful reading of the book will challenge one’s thinking. Are any of us really desperately alive or do we just go through the motions of living, going to school, going to work, getting married, having kids, etc? The end of the book explains Smith’s often bizarre behavior with a humorous twist. I highly recommend it but it’s written in the early 20th century and Chesterton is British so his English is a bit tough but its worth it.

Why I Don’t Like Religion Part 2

I recently read Tim Kellers book, The Prodigal God. It came out last November. I got it then and read it in a little more than an hour. Keller is a master Christian apologist. He’s really amazing. In my mind, he’s the C.S. Lewis of the 21st century.

The book is a practical explanation of the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32. Actually, the story should be called the parable of the prodigal brothers. The younger son is highlighted by most of those who read it but it’s really about two brothers who are equally lost and one brother, the younger one, who is eventually found and ends up home celebrating with his family. The story ends without climax. No one really knows what happens to the older brother because the older brother (Mr. Grumpy) won’t go to the party and celebrate his brother’s return.

The purpose of this post is not to explain the parable or even comment on it but rather to share a quote from Keller’s book that highlights why I don’t like religion. In the parable the older brother represents the religious people and yet he is grumpy, blaming, disrespectful, unhappy, self-absorbed, self-righteous, and frankly, not a lot of fun. Keller, commenting on this virtually captures my thinking when he notes, “There are many people today who have abandoned any kind of religious faith because they see clearly that the major religions are simply full of elder brothers. They have come to the conclusion that religion is one of the greatest sources of misery and strife in the world. And guess what? Jesus says through this parable—they are right. The anger and superiority of elder brothers, all growing out of insecurity, fear, and inner emptiness, can create a huge body of guilt-ridden, spiritually blind people, which is one of the greatest sources of social injustice, war, and violence. (pg. 67)

I hate to admit this, but I think that there have been times in my life when I was an “older brother.” I didn’t want to be but didn’t know anything different at the time because that’s the way things were. But I am different now--I hope. Last Saturday I had a conversation with a self described atheist who essentially said the same thing as Keller. Religion is ugly. Really! But the gospel is very different from religion. Maybe in a future post I’ll explain why.