Manly Dominion (Mark Chanski)

In Manly Dominion, Pastor Mark Chanski argues that in today's society, men are too often "passive-purple four-balls" (to use a billiards image), being pushed around and failing to act, when the Bible calls for them to be "aggressively dominating and pushing around our environment and circumstances." He gets this from the initial cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28, arguing that our job is to have dominion and subdue. He looks at a handful of areas (vocation, spiritual living, husbanding, fathering, etc.) applying this image and talking through each.

I didn't like this. Don't get me wrong- there are certainly some important truths in here. But the following things rubbed me the wrong way:

• His overall point was okay, but he hammered everything into the aggressive vs. passive construct, which (in places) didn't feel quite correct. For example, what he called being aggressive in places was simply being diligent, or wise, or faithful. 
• In addition, he fails to acknowledge/explain the negative connotation some of his preferred words have acquired over time. It doesn't mean they can't be used; but one must be aware of the audience and appreciate the reaction that certain words may produce. He can come across as pushy, and not in a good or acceptable way.
• He used poor arguments in places, often making strawmen of opposing viewpoints or, at the very least, failing to acknowledge nuance or complexity in issues that can very much feature them.
• For example, he writes off all environmentalists as placing creation above man. This is  true for some, not all. And there are Christian environmentalists who argue not that man is subject to nature, but that man's current handling of nature is far from God's view of proper stewardship. 
• He focuses so much on being 'aggressive' that insufficient attention is given to being correct. Or being humble. Or wise. That is all implied or marginally covered, to be fair, but I think he would do well to draw those out a bit more.
• His examples were simplistic and implied guaranteed success. "Just do this and watch everything be magically amazing!" He didn't say it that way, but it was the gist. He never covered examples where things didn't work out despite you doing all the right things.
• He seems overly focused on success and prosperity. His examples of employment, for example, focus on either college-educated people advancing as far as possible or tradesman starting their own ventures. He even says "make all the money you can" at one point. I wonder where he sees that in Scripture. God calls us to be holy. Faithful. Success is hoped for but never promised.
• I'm not confident the Scriptures he uses in arguments are always the best, or even used appropriately. In general, his arguments range from "true" to "mostly true" to "sometimes true," and I feel his proof texts can be taken out of context (or not appropriate to his claim).

So, this was an odd read for me. On the one hand, I think he and I would agree on many basic theological stances. On the other, I think he's trying too hard to look at everything as an aggressive vs. passive construct, and in so doing paints unfair pictures or mildly distorts Scriptures. Ultimately, I think his point is to strive to exhibit disciplines of a Godly man as put forth in the Bible, and that too often, men fail to do so and lapse into an inappropriately-passive mindset. There, I agree with him. But I suggest that other works more appropriately (and accurately) cover the topic. It's been years since I've read it, but R. Kent Hughes' Disciplines of a Godly Man come to mind.

Rating: C

Spider-man

Riding a Spider-man kick (we watched Into the Spider-verse with the kids last weekend), today we saw the 2002 film, Spider-man. 

Peter Parker is a typical high school nerd, loving class and being bullied as he longs to be with the popular girl next door, MJ, and spend time with his friend Harry Osborne. But a class trip takes an unexpected turn as he's bitten by a genetically-modified spider, granting him amazing abilities . . .

Norman Osborne is a rich and renowned scientist, on the verge of a performance-enhancing breakthrough. But with experimental setbacks and deadlines looming, desperation set in and he makes himself the test subject, with horrifying results . . . 

Spider-man and Green Goblin will clash as Peter grapples with his Uncle Ben's life lesson: "with great power comes great responsibility."

---------

Has it really been almost 20 years since this movie's release? This film and X-men are largely responsible for the wave of superhero films that followed, as CG technology  improved enough to enable realistic comic book adaptations on the big screen. This film has aged . . . okay. It wasn't as deep as I remembered it; you see Peter grapple with his Uncle Ben's death [and Peter's role in it] and how to protect loved ones as he dons the suit, but outside of that, it's a pretty straightforward story. MJ's character was more annoying than I remembered, and other deviations from the classic comic books (like Spidey having natural webshooters vs. making them himself) irked me for some reason. It's not bad- there are still some great characters and good storytelling- but better things in the genre have followed.

Rating: B

The Path of Daggers (Robert Jordan)

The Wheel of Time saga continues! Shortly after A Crown of Swords . . .

Rand, fresh off victory in Ilian, hears of a new Seanchan threat and turns his attention to the west . . . can he prevail against them a second time?

With Mat stuck in Ebou Dar to an unknown fate, Elayne and company use the Bowl of Winds with surprising results. Elayne then seeks to reclaim her mother's throne . . .

Perrin and company are on the move, to reign in the self-proclaimed 'Prophet of the Dragon' who has been wreaking havoc in the area. The 'rogue' Aes Sedai, with Egwene in charge, also march, intent on war with an increasingly fractured White Tower and Elaida . . .

Rand's Black Tower- the grouping and teaching of men who can channel- are increasing in leaps and bounds, but not without cost . . .

------------

The review of this volume could mirror the last- very slow at the beginning, for the majority of the book, and speeds up at the end. Increasing numbers of minor characters are difficult for me to track, all while the glossary in each book is getting progressively worse. Overall, I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the uneven pacing and hundreds of pages of inactivity. Eight books down, six to go. I hope it picks up the pace. 

Rating: B-

The Incredibles

 

Years ago, superheroes abounded in society. But a series of mishaps, collateral damage, and lawsuits forced 'supers' to make their secret identity their only identity. Today, Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl are married with three children. She manages the house and children as he works a mundane insurance job- and yearns for the past. One day, an opportunity to re-live the glory days arises, and he cannot pass it up. But things are more than they seem . . . and he may not be incredible enough to survive.

An action-packed comedy suitable for all ages, this old (2004) film is one we've enjoyed many times (most recently, yesterday). It explores important themes of power, responsibility, and uniqueness in a light-hearted (yet poignant) way. Highly recommended.

Rating: A

A Rulebook for Arguments (Anthony Weston)

 

The word "argument" has a negative connotation. Yet Anthony Weston says that "arguments are efforts to support certain views with reasons," making them essential.  But arguing well takes time and practice- it's an acquired skill. Hence, A Rulebook for Arguments, which lays out 50 rules for arguments broken down into:

• six chapters on short arguments (general rules, arguments by example, arguments by analogy, arguments from authority, arguments about causes, deductive arguments) 
• four chapters on applying those 'short-argument' principles to common situations (extended arguments, argumentative essays, oral arguments, public debates)
• two appendices on common fallacies and definitions

This 100-page book has the essentials and little else. I love things like this. It's systematic, succinct, and clear. It is to arguments what The Elements of Style is to writing. Recommended.

Rating: A

The Spectacular Spider-Man

 

The Spectacular Spider-Man was an animated series that ran for two seasons (2008-9) and 26 episodes. When high school geek Peter Parker gets bitten by a mutant spider, he finds himself with . . . spectacular . . . abilities. With great power comes great responsibility- and Pete must juggle high school, girl troubles, caring for his widowed Aunt Mae, and (of course) dealing with the super villains that keep popping up to terrorize New York.

The kids and I watched this series on Netflix, finishing it up today. Wow. I was impressed by the balance- it was light-hearted and action-packed, yet dealt with some impressively 'grown-up' themes of managing multiple responsibilities, the pain of feeling unloved, relational drama, protecting those you love at personal cost, and more. Reading the wiki page, I see it was planned to go three more seasons (~40 more episodes), but was canceled due to legal squabbling between Disney/Marvel and Sony over the rights. That's a shame; it concludes with plenty of loose ends, but could have been outstanding had it been able to run to the finish. It was pretty great anyway.

Rating: A

Oxford Guide to Effective Argument & Critical Thinking (Colin Swatridge)

In this book, the author presents concepts related to argument and critical thinking, using plenty of "'real-life' arguments by notable people from across history that illustrate essential points." He discusses the basics, to include what it means to argue, making yourself clear, looking at related arguments made by others, supporting your case, certainty and plausability, matters of belief, poor arguing practices (overstatement, ad hominem attacks, etc.), consistency, and laying out your case.

A book on effective argument and critical thinking that's poorly structured and formatted? I alternated between amusement and irritation at the irony. There are nuggets of good information here, but the presentation is confusing, layout bizarre, font small, and color off (is it grayscale? green? I couldn't tell). Reorganized, this might be worthwhile. As it is, avoid. I spot-read 20% before giving up.

Rating: C-

WandaVision: Season 1

Something is not right in Westview, New Jersey. Wanda and Vision live idyllic lives raising their children in this small town . . . or do they? Strange things are afoot . . . as they find themselves the main stars in ever-changing sets, they start to question their reality- and their sanity. What is going on- and who is behind it all?

Bizarre. Trippy. Fascinating. Original. I wasn't sure what to make of the first few episodes, but as the latter half of the season (nine episodes in all) progressed, the pieces started falling into place, and I increasingly enjoyed this continuation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Rating: B+

An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments (Ali Almossawi)

 

An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments is a whimsical overview, "aimed at newcomers to the field of logical reasoning," about what not to do in arguments. The author chose "nineteen of the most common errors in reasoning and visualized them using memorable illustrations . . ." to show "some of the most common pitfalls in arguments and be able to identify and avoid them in practice." The ultimate goal: foster "more constructive debates."

"Logic does not generate new truths, but rather allows one to evaluate existing chains of thought for consistency and coherence." I argue that we don't do this well today. And "formalizing one's reasoning could lead to useful benefits such as clarity of thought and expression, improved objectivity, and greater confidence. The ability to analyze other's arguments can also serve as a yardstick for when to withdraw from discussions that will most likely be futile."  I picked up this book with great anticipation, heightened by the opening graphic:

Alas, I was somewhat disappointed. The illustrations were cute but added nothing to the content; the overviews were at times helpful, but sometimes a little off or misleading (potentially even incorrect- or presented poorly and easily misconstrued). At ~50 pages, it's a fast read, but there must be better summaries of this topic out there.

If this past election cycle (or, really, any election cycle)  taught me anything, it's that we as a culture are woefully bad at arguing. Constructively, anyway. So I have a few logic/argument books on my reading list this year, and this was my first. My hope is to learn how to better argue. Not to 'win,' but to fairly present points and expect others to do the same. This book helped me a little bit, but not as much as I'd hoped.

Rating: C+