Art and the Bible (Francis A. Schaeffer)

Art and the Bible is a 1973 short work (94 pages) by the renowned Francis Schaeffer that consists of two essays. In the first, he looks at the place of art in the Christian's life. In the second, he develops a Christian perspective on art, consisting of eleven principles. A summary follows.

---------

Essay One: Art and the Bible

Jesus is Lord of all, and everything is under His lordship—including culture and art. Christians sometimes struggle with art given the Bible's prohibition against making graven images (Exodus 20:4-5). But this is not a blanket statement against art in general but rather condemns the worship of it. After all, God commissioned art for the tabernacle and temple, respectively, and different art forms are found all throughout the Bible. Part of being made in God's image includes creativity—and art. Examples:

Representational Art 

- Sculptures in the tabernacle and temple, respectively (Exodus 25:18, 31-33; 2 Chronicles 3:10, 4:3-4)

- A bronze serpent (Numbers 21:8), that Jesus used as an example (John 3:14-15)

- Clothing (Exodus 28:33)

- Other things in the temple, including bas relief (1 Chronicles 28:11-12, 19; 2 Chronicles 3:6-7)

- Solomon's throne (1 Kings 10:18-20)

- Note that "representational art of non-religious subjects" was found in "the central place of worship."

Poetry

Poetry is scattered throughout the Bible. Poems are in many books or entire books.

- 2 Samuel 1:19-27 (a secular ode!)

- 2 Samuel 23:1-2

- The Psalms and Song of Solomon

Music

- Celebrating the escape from Egypt (Exodus 15)

- In the temple (1 Chronicles 23:5)

Drama

- Ezekiel's prophecy, which he was to enact twice a year (Ezekiel 4:1-3)

Dance

- Psalm 149:3, Psalm 150:4-5

- Miriam dancing after the escape from Egypt (Exodus 15:20)

- David dancing (2 Samuel 6:14-16)

Art is not just pragmatic and truthful but also beautiful (for its own sake). See places like 2 Chronicles 3:6, 16-17, and elsewhere. It can represent both the seen and unseen world (see 1 Kings 6:29). It is for both religious and secular reasons.

Essay Two: Some Perspectives on Art

"How should we as creators and enjoyers of beauty comprehend and evaluate it?" He provides eleven principles.

1. "A work of art has a value in itself." It is to be enjoyed as well as evaluated.
2. "Art forms add strength to the world view which shows through, no matter what the world view is or whether the world view is true or false."
3. "In all forms of writing, both poetry and prose, it makes a tremendous difference whether there is a continuity or discontinuity with the normal definitions of words in normal syntax."
• "Totally abstract art stands in an undefined relationship with the viewer."
4. "The fact that something is a work of art does not make it sacred."
5.  There are four basic standards by which to judge art: technical excellence, validity, intellectual content, and the integration of content and vehicle. 
6. "Art can be used for any type of message from pure fantasy to detailed history."
7. "Styles of art form change and there is nothing wrong with this."
8. "There is no such thing as a godly style or an ungodly style."
9. "The Christian world view is divided into . . . a major and a minor theme."
• The major is the Gospel. The minor is the fall.
10. "Christian art is by no means always religious art, that is, art which deals with religious themes."
11. "Every artist has the problem of making an individual work of art and, as well, buidling up a total body of work."

Ultimately, "no work of art is more important than the Christian's own life . . . each  man has the gift of creativity in terms of the way he lifes his life. In this sense, the Christian's life is to be an art work. The Christian's life is to be a thing of truth and also a thing of beauty in the midst of a lost and despairing world."

---------

This was a great book; short and to the point. Schaeffer brought up a lot of good Scriptures and insights on this topic. Written at a time when some Christians had a dim view of art (or non-religious art) in general, this was a needed corrective then (and is likely still needed now).

Rating: A

Captain America: Brave New World

The MCU saga continues . . .

Sam is the new Captain America*. Thaddeus Ross** is president and wants to re-form the Avengers. And Celestial Island*** is the latest topic of concern; made of Adamantium, the world debates if it is better to share or fight over the wealth. Wanting the former, Ross attempts diplomacy at the Celestial Island World Summit. But Ross has a dark secret that may destroy the best-laid plans . . . and he may be his own worst enemy.

Captain America: Brave New World reminds us of the two most forgettable movies in the MCU (see below links) and then contributes to that by being itself largely irrelevant. There were good themes (of the need to reform, take responsibility for your own actions, never give up, and give each other grace), but these were minimally developed (and confusingly so). The confusion revolves around several bad guys, each with a blend of motives that leaves the audience wondering who we are supposed to root for (or against). The action was 'meh' and I was unclear if or how this drove the overall MCU storyline forward. As is increasingly common, you need to be familiar with several (many?) prior MCU releases in film and television. Ultimately, this felt more like a long television show. This came out 1.5 years ago . . . I don't normally wait so long to watch MCU movies, but I didn't miss anything by doing so here.

Rating: C

*See the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier

**See The Incredible Hulk. Then a General (and played by another actor), Ross has risen to POTUS.

***See The Eternals.

Spider-man: Brand New Day

Continuing from last time . . . [no spoilers below save what was evident in trailers or in No Way Home]

Peter Parker lives in loneliness as he reels from the events of No Way Home. Aunt May is dead. The world doesn't know him; even his besties MJ and Ned have no memory of him. And things are about to get worse . . .  for powerful new threats appear on the horizon even as Peter wrestles with changes in himself. Can people with powers live a normal life, with friends and family to enjoy and help? Or does the great responsibility that comes with great power mean he is destined to do this alone?

It has been a long time (4.5 years) since the last Spidey movie, and it was nice to see the MCU progress this storyline. A few observations:

- This film strikes a markedly different tone from the others; it was 'heavier' and more poignant as various characters grapple with loneliness and pain. It felt less like a typical action-oriented Marvel film and more psychological.

- The characters were done well. It was fun seeing Punisher's incorporation into the movies (after several television series), though they made no attempt to explain why he was suddenly on the scene. Hulk was cool, too. Others were also great, but I won't share details to avoid spoilers.

- The story was alright. Some of the plot twists were obvious; others were unexpected. They do keep you guessing. It does not stand alone; you need to be familiar with prior films, though I guess that is expected at this point.

- The message was simple: we need others ("friendship is magical," I joked with my boys—My Little Pony's tagline is apt here). 

Is this the best Spider-man movie ever? Some so claim . . . I'm not convinced. It is a good film, but I'm not sure it is the best one.

Rating: A

Hillbilly Elegy (J.D. Vance)

J.D. Vance is a hillbilly. He grew up in Middletown, Ohio, and spent plenty of time in Jackson, Kentucky. From a blue-collar and broken home (poor, an addict mother rotating through husbands, an extended family with their own anger, money, or drug problems), he would beat the odds to graduate high school, serve as a Marine, go to college, go to Yale law school, and have a stable and happy home life. But even if you leave the 'holler' . . . does it ever really leave you? Hillbilly Elegy is his story, but not just his—it is "a memoir of a family and culture in crisis." 

Vance's stated goals here are to help people understand the white poor, the demons they face (and that follow them), what the American Dream looks like for people like him, and how upward mobility feels for a "cultural emigrant." Written when he was just thirty-one, within a decade this man would go on to be Senator (and now) Vice President. Incredible.

This is a sobering, haunting, and yet hopeful/inspiring read. It is mostly a memoir—a select autobiography—with some statistics and insights thrown in on the white poor as a whole. Ultimately, Vance shows that everyone needs help (it's about who you know, who knows you, and how they help you) and grace (we all have our demons and need others to heal). He also has keen insights on the realities of personal responsibility being in tension with the environment you are raised in and its impact on you. Regardless of how you feel about the man's politics, I recommend this book to help understand not just him, but the challenges that face a large percentage of America today.

Rating: A

Adamastor

Today's review is of the 2025 release, Adamastor. For one player, it takes 30 minutes.

Overview

You are a captain charged with getting your ship across the seas. But it won't be easy . . . illness, fatigue, weather, and even mutiny may stand in your way. Do you have what it takes to navigate these perils (and any adventures that may await) and lead your ship to safe shores?

Adamastor is a solo game—it is a race against time and perils. After setting up the play area (laying out four map cards, setting your ship on the leftmost, laying out three sailing cards to form the adventure row, setting up the sailing and encounter decks, and drawing 3 more sailing cards as your hand) and determining the weather (see below), play begins.

Key to this game are the sailing cards (two examples above), which have several attributes. They have a card number (top right), weather icon (top left), threat and motivation icons (middle left), navigation points (bottom center), and a trauma or skill (center right). 

- the card number determines order in the adventure row (cards go highest to lowest number)

- the weather icons of the three cards in the adventure row determine the weather for the turn (which determines your action points and navigation difficulty for the turn)

- threat and motivation icons are used during the event phase to determine if any bad things happen or you have enough motivation to gain a skill, respectively 

- navigation points are used to propel your ship. Moving into different spots on the map have different costs, and you must discard from your hand to gain the corresponding number of points

- traumas or skills are gained during the event phase, giving you permanent bonuses or penalties

The game is played over a series of turns. Simplified, these are:

- sunrise (draw a card and add it to the adventure row, then determine the weather and gather the corresponding number of action tokens)

- actions (draw a card, swap a card between your hand and adventure row, or navigate your ship by discarding the needed number of navigation points). Each of these actions costs one token, and you can do as many as you can pay for (including the same action more than once)

-- in the action phase, if you stop on an adventure icon, you trigger an encounter by drawing the bottom card of the encounter deck and doing what it says

- events (check the card symbols in the adventure row, gaining a skill if possible, then studying the perils to see if you have triggered unrest, disease, exhaustion, or mutiny penalties)

- sunset (discard the lowest value card in the adventure row, gaining it as a trauma or discarding if a skill)

The turns continue until you win (by getting your ship across all four map cards to safe harbor) or lose (by a mutiny or running out of sailing cards).

Game in progress, right before I win

Review 

I have never played a solo tabletop game before (meaning one meant for only one player), and I really liked this one. The rules are easily grasped, gameplay moves along swiftly, there are meaningful decisions, and there is a lot of tension—it is hard to win, and if you do, it will be by the skin of your teeth (I played five times and won only twice, both times in the nick of time). The art is gorgeous, too. And I liked the multiple functions of the sailing cards; they are cleverly done. Overall, this one is a winner.

Rating: A

Christ & Culture (H. Richard Niebuhr)

In the monumental 1951 work Christ & Culture, theologian H. Richard Niebuhr studies a fundamental problem: how Christians over the centuries have related to the culture in which they found themselves. After defining Christ and culture in turn, he offers a fivefold typology (a "mental construct" which he admits in not exhaustive) for the most common approaches/answers, giving historical examples of figures who best exemplified a given type. Highlights follow.

---------

Niebuhr first sets out to define Christ. He acknowledges Jesus as the authority but argues that describing Him is difficult, as "every description falls short of completeness . . ." Studying how others answer the question, he notes that many focus on a single attribute of Christ to the diminishment or exclusion of others. These attributes include His love, the hope we have in Him, His radical obedience to the father, His faith, His excellent character, His great humility, or His work as mediator. 

Niebuhr then does the same for culture. He argues its chief characteristics are that it is social (and a social heritage), focused on human achievement ("it includes speech, education, tradition, myth, sceince, art, philosophy, government, law, rite, beliefs, inventions, technologies"), it is a "world of values", it shows that what we make "is intended for a purpose; it is designed to serve a good," and it is "for the good of man." Ultimately, "culture in all its forms and varieties is concerned with the temporal and material realization [and conservation] of values."

The Five Types:

1. Christ against Culture
• Emphasizing the opposition between the two, this position ("radical") looks at this as an "either-or" decision; Christ is the sole authority and culture must thus be rejected. It can look at the church as a safe/cleansed space and withdraw from the world.
2. Christ of Culture
• Emphasizing the agreement between the two, this position ("accomodationist") feels "no great tension between the church and the world" and seek "to reconcile the gospel with the science and philosophy of their time." It can erase distinctions "between God and man by divinizing man or humanizing God."
3. Christ over Culture*
• Recognizing the gap between Christ and culture due to man's fallenness, this position ("synthesist") seeks "some sort of reconciliation between Christ and culture without denial of either." They look at things as "both-and", synthesizing reason and revelation. They find civil institutions important and seek to cooperate in such things with nonbelievers while maintaining distinctions.
4. Christ and Culture in Paradox
• This position ("dualist") recognizes that both Christ and culture have authority but are opposed; there is tension as we are to obey both—man lives in two realms. They recognize we are all fallen and inescapably part of a fallen/corrupt culture. They are pessimistic about cultural possibilities, believing it can at best restrain wickedness. 
5. Christ the Transformer of Culture
• This position ("conversionist") agrees with the dualists that man is fallen but has a "more positive and hopeful attitude toward culture," believing "that such culture is under God's sovereign rule, and that the Christian must carry on culture work in obedience to the Lord."

*Types 3-5 are technically all "Christ over Culture," but Niebuhr gives unique names for Type 4-5.

After this typology, Niebuhr concludes with a caveat: the “examination of the typical answers Christians have given to their enduring problem is unconcluded and inconclusive.” People rarely fit neatly within one type, and we cannot say of a given position that “this is THE Christian answer.” Seeking to obey God in our present situation means wisdom is needed. “We must make our decisions, carry on our reasoning, and gain our experience as particular men in particular times wand with particular duties.” We need humility, dependence on God, and accept we may have differences as we grapple with how we relate to society. The answer may be fluid, with several (or all!) of the above typologies appropriate to situations over the course of our lives given unique circumstances . . . we must thus make our “confessions and decisions both with confidence and the humility which accepts completion and correction and even conflict from and with others who stand in the same relation to [God].”

---------

I have mixed feelings about Niebuhr's work. 

- the good: I see why it is important, am glad I read it, and valued his insights in this area. He is talented, using profound and witty turns of phrase reminiscent of Chesterton. His knowledge of historical philosophy/theology is impressive. And the categories are a helpful framework for articulating and codifying the different approaches.

- the bad: his definitions of Christ and culture were too vague and inconclusive. His categories are unequally handled, with a discussion for some (but not all) on their biblical faithfulness—the focus is on what people throughout history thought vs. what the Bible says. On that topic, I didn't like how he handled Scripture; I got the sense that he viewed the Biblical writers as having very different (and maybe incompatible?) stances, and I don't think he fairly represented (say) Paul or John.  

I did Niebuhr a disservice by reading D.A. Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited first, which is a critique and a correction of this work. I'm glad I read both, but agree with Carson's assessment that the typology has value only when we recognize that the Bible doesn't call us to hold to one position in all times or ways; we need humility, wisdom, dependence on God, and a willingness to walk with others who may disagree as we seek to faithfully follow Christ.

Rating: B-

Forest Shuffle

Today's review is of the 2023 release, Forest Shuffle. For 2-5 players, it takes 60 minutes.

Overview

You are building a habitat by planting trees and placing animals, plants, and mushrooms [all represented by cards] around them. Each card has characteristics that tells you how it thrives; if you can place your cards wisely, you will earn more points and prevail. Do you have what it takes to produce a balanced ecosystem?

To start, place the game board in the center, deal six cards to each player, and prepare the remaining deck with three winter cards shuffled in as the rules indicate. Play begins and moves clockwise; on your turn, you either draw two cards (from the board or deck) or play one card to your tableau. If you play a card, you must pay its costs by discarding other cards from your hand to the board. If the board ever has ten cards, those cards are discarded.

Generically, cards are trees or animals/plants/mushrooms., and each has attributes that show how it scores points (generally, by the presence of other types of species it likes). Tree cards must be played first. Once you have a tree, you can play the other three card types, each of which have two halves (split horizontally or vertically and representing two different animals/plants/etc.) and are placed around a tree  (top, bottom, left, or right) as permitted by their orientation and your preference. A tree can have no more than four cards around it unless a card indicates otherwise. Over the course of the game, you can play any number of trees, and they needn't be 'full' (have cards on all four sides). Whenever a winter card is revealed, it is set aside and another card is drawn. Once the third winter card is revealed, play immediately stops, points are tallied, and highest total wins!

Example game layout; image from here

Review

This game is highly regarded, and I enjoyed it. It is simple, though it can be overwhelming given the sheer number of options and ways to score points. (It can feel like a 'point salad' game in that respect.) The split cards were an interesting twist leading to meaningful decisions. Player interaction is low: the main way to interact with your opponents is through the cards discarded to the game board (you can help or hurt others based on your choices there). Otherwise, your goal is efficient resource management, wisely balancing your hand size with playing cards and looking for synergies based on your cards. Overall, recommended, especially for fans of comparable games like 7 Wonders (which is more interactive) or Wingspan (which is more complicated).

Rating: B

Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

The Foot Clan is in Gotham, stealing experimental tech. Shredder is with them . . and he has a partner. If they have their way, the city will fall and evil will last forever. Batman is on the case, but he'll need help. Maybe some teenagers with ninja skills. Turtle mutants.

I expect any 'cross-IP' offering to be a money grab and thus had low expectations for this 2019 movie. I was wrong; I loved it. The plot is predictable ("the worlds of Batman and TMNT collide; chaos ensues"), the message minimal (but solid), but where this film shines is the humor—it was hilarious. We laughed out loud through the whole film. There are a few instances of language or scary images, but this is a winner, best enjoyed by those familiar with both franchises.

Rating: A

Reflecting on the 2026 World Cup

That's a wrap! Spain just won the 2026 World Cup.

Soccer has a special place in my heart. It is the first (and primary) sport I played on an organized team. It is the only sport I have ever refereed (I've officiated games in two countries and two spurts—in the late '90s and late '00s). I love it . . . and there are parts I can't stand about it. All the emotions come to the fore every four years during the World Cup. 

The 2026 World Cup is now in the books; 48 teams played 104 games in 16 host cities, most of which were in the USA. I watched more of this Cup than any other . . . and I have some opinions. But first, the group stage and knockout brackets.

The Group Stage

The groups; image from here

The 48 teams (expanded this year from the normal 32) in this World Cup were organized into 12 four-team groups (see above image). Each team played against all others in their respective group. Draws were fine. By points, the top two teams from each group (and the third-place team in eight of them) advanced to the knockout stage.

The Knockout Stage

The knockout stage; image from here

In prior years, the knockout stage featured the top 16 teams, but since this year's tournament expanded the field to 48 teams, the first round of knockouts was the round of 32. 

On to my likes/dislikes.

Likes

• The kit. All national teams change their kit every couple years (2 or 4, I don't remember and I think it depends anyway). It's always fun seeing what a given country is wearing, from the expected (like Argentine stripes or Croatian checkers), to bold new designs, to homages to classic jerseys of decades past. Eight examples below . . . note the subtle details some feature. Norway's was a particular favorite this year. This ESPN article shows and ranks all the kit.

• The team names. National team nicknames can be basic, straightforward . . . or hilarious. You can see a complete list here; my favorites are the Socceroos (Australia), The Selection (Argentina), The Team (Germany), The Three Lions (England), Orange (Netherlands), The Tartan Army (Scotland), The Canal Men (Panama), The Pharoahs (Egypt), and The Chivalrous Ones (Jordan).
• The camaraderie. Soccer is the world's sport. Fans come together for love of country and/or love of the game. It's fun to watch that play out. This year, to list a few examples, the Scottish fans drank Boston out of beer, the Norwegian fans had a viking 'row' routine, and the Japanese cleaned up stadiums. 
• The skills. There is no denying the technical skill of players on the pitch. My favorite are one-touch passing sequences, sometimes involving no-look passes or step-overs. But the strength and accuracy of the passes/shots, the goalie acrobatics, the timing to avoid offsides . . . it is all impressive.
• The tension. Is soccer the only sport whose game end is up to the referee? There are two 45-minute halves, but each has stoppage time, a discretionary number that ranges from 1 to 9 minutes of added play to account for the fake injuries (see below) and other delays. But even that number (made public at the start of stoppage time) in only a guide, and stoppage time can have its own delays that adds more time, meaning they play until the ref decides to stop. It makes for nail-biting uncertainty in close games.
• Cape Verde. This year's sweetheart was Cape Verde; the island nation drew with Spain, made it to the knockout round and took Argentina into extra time. Incredible performance from such a small nation. You can view their highlights vs. Argentina here.
• Select players. Erling Haaland (Norway), Jude Bellingham (England), Lionel Messi (Argentina), Vozinha (Cape Verde), Folarin Balogun (America), and Marc Cucurella (Spain) are a few of the players who stood out to me this World Cup. This is a team game, but individual talent shines through.

Dislikes

• The low scores. Let's be honest . . . in any sport, we like scoring. In soccer, goals are scarce . . . and it can be a yawn-fest (unless both teams are pressing and just failing to finish). England vs. France in the consolation game (a 6-4 thriller) shows how much more exciting this game can be when both teams commit to the attack. Consider:
• In this WC, there were 308 goals in 104 games, about 3 scores per game.
• 120 goals came in 21 of the games, meaning 188 came in the remaining 83 contests; just over 2 goals per contest. 
• By comparison, other popular sports score more often. The NHL (6 goals per game), MLB (9 runs per game), and football (45 points per game, divided by 7 = 6.4 scores per game) blow soccer out of the water in this category.
• Turtling. Some teams 'turtle' (hunker down and play defense) from the start or if they go up. This is effectively giving up goal-scoring opportunities and hoping that playing your entire team on defense will deny goals to your opponent. It doesn't always work (see England or Egypt vs. Argentina this year), and it is annoying to watch.
• Flopping. Soccer is a unique sport in that theatrics pay off. When a player is brushed, lightly touched, or looked at, the average soccer player falls over, rolls around wildly and grabs a body part (generally, the ankle or head) writhing in pain. Everyone else on the field throws up their hands and looks at the official, clearly expecting a foul will be called on the other team. If it is, 'great.' If it isn't, the nearly-dead player just hops up and starts playing again. Or they keep rolling around if they want to really sell it (and/or just give everyone on the field a break as the ref whistles in an ambulance or whatever). Then they hop up later. To top it off, announcers buy into it completely. They analyze the play, see a player fall over for basically no reason, and fawn over them, bemoaning the 'injury.' Sheeeeeeesh.
• Games ending in penalty kicks. What a terrible way to end any game. But in the knockout stages, this is the way draws are resolved (after an extra period of play). Penalties decided four games in this Cup. One of them went against Germany. Not that I'm bitter.*
• Draws. In this World Cup, 25 games ended in draws. I'm indifferent to those. I guess.
• Certain fouls. Maybe the rules have changed since I was refereeing**, but I was shocked at some of the fouls that got red cards in this tournament. Players both going for the ball . . . a foot comes down in the wrong spot and the player is sent off. Ridiculous in my mind. Related: I don't know how many goals were disallowed due to questionable fouls, but it felt like the refs looked for reasons to keep the scoring down.
• Delays in calling fouls. When I was refereeing, the only time you didn't call a foul upon recognition is when the fouled team had the ball and advantage (in which case you allowed them to play on). In this tournament, apparently, you can call fouls when:
• it happened a half-minute earlier (offsides calls were notorious for this)
• it happened on the other side of the pitch, minutes earlier
• it happened on the other side of the world, days earlier
• Team USA (vs. Belgium). For whatever reason, the USA just cannot master men's soccer.
• The common hairstyle. AI tells me that this "textured crop with a mid-fade is one of the most popular men's hairstyles, combining short, choppy layers on top with clean, faded sides." Alex Baena (below) showcases the look. Many other players did in this Cup. I wasn't a fan; echoes of mullet.

Alex Baena (Spain)

Jury's Still Out

• The expanded format. Increasing the teams by 50%? More teams can be thrilling (see Cape Verde above); it can also mean more 'chaff' can get in, diluting the talent level and making for embarrassing blowouts.
• VAR. This year they used a team of Video Assistant Referees (VAR). In certain cases, the on-field ref could appeal to VAR (and review the footage himself) to determine if any calls needed to be adjusted. I'm of mixed mind here . . . on the one hand, every ref wants to get it right, and if video can aid that, why not? On the other, several VAR episodes this WC caused only drama (going from 'no foul' to 'red card' is a bit much to me). I think this is best used for offsides or offenses that happened away from a referee's vision vs. things he sees and calls on the field.

Final Thoughts

The fact that I watched so much indicates where my heart lies—I love this game. It was delightful to see it on U.S. soil (and thus at reasonable times), I'm glad the games were largely broadcast over the air so I could enjoy them, and the likes listed above outweighed my dislikes. It was fun to see the world come together and celebrate. Until next time, world. See you in four years.

*I am. But I concede that the Germans didn't deserve to win.

**They didn't. I checked. Okay, they did, but not in ways relevant to my point.

Fear is Not a Sin (Edward T. Welch)

In Fear is Not a Sin, psychologist and counselor Edward T. Welch seeks to help those wrestling with fear and anxiety by pointing them to Jesus. He argues that fear is not a sin but a call to action, looking at both in turn. Highlights follow.

--------
We are prone to fear. "Scripture assumes that we live with fear and anxieties. We are weak people who can control very little." Many times Jesus says things like "don't be afraid" or "do not weep;" Welch argues that in each case, though in the imperative form, Jesus's words "are not a command, but an expression of care and compassion." "Fear and anxiety are not sinful. Left unattended, however, they can be dangerous. If you don't bring them to Jesus, you are left trusting in yoruself, which is sin, and that will chock your soul (Mark 4:19)." So what are we do to with our fear?

• First, we recognize that desires the underpin our fears and anxieties. "Fears identify what we want, what is important to us, and what we desire." "Fear is a desire that is threatened; grief is a desire taken away." 
• What do you desire? Is it an acceptable desire or excessive (and thus an idol that needs to be confessed and repented of)?
• Second, we learn to turn to God, who does not promise a specific outcome but routinely says "I am with you . . . I will not leave you." (Genesis 28:15) He remembers that we are dust (Psalm 103:14) and tells us to fear not because of who God is and what God will do (Luke 12:32). He wants us to tell Him about our fears (see the Psalms, which are filled with such things). Our task, even as those with little faith, "is to rest in Jesus and grow."

As we turn to God with our fears and rest in Him, our faith, courage, and confidence in Jesus will grow. We see this in the Psalms, as many of them "begin with fear, move toward the faithfulness of the Lord, and end with confidence and hope." Turning to God through Scripture and prayer will teach us to say/believe "yes [Jesus], I believe you care." And that will go a long way toward calming our fears.

This change won't happen overnight. After a fearful episode, learn to ask yourself "Did I turn toward the Lord or not?" "Your growth is measured not by the intensity of your fears and anxieties, but in how you turn to Jesus."

--------

This little booklet is succinct and helpful. Its argument and approach is Biblical and powerful. It is just 70 pages, some of which are blank for journaling and reflection. Recommended.

Rating: A

Daredevil: Born Again (Season 2)

Shortly after last time . . .

Wilson Fisk tightens his grip on New York City from the Mayor's office, using the Anti-Vigilante Task Force, personal henchmen, and allies inside the courts. Daredevil and Karen Page debate their dwindling options in a city rampant with corruption. How can one be just in the face of such injustice? What hope do they have? They cannot do it alone . . . and friends old and new will help in various ways. But ultimately, if they want to win, they will put it all on the line . . . and may lose everything.

This 8-episode season was much in keeping with those prior: well-done and extremely suspenseful, with intriguing themes and plot twists. The story moves along nicely, and the characters have depth. The ending was thought-provoking. Let the viewer beware, there is some bad language and it can be gruesomely violent. But overall I give this high marks; Matt and others realize the way out involves help, grace, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice. Powerful indeed. It was nice to see the show reach a degree of closure, even as I hear that season 3 is in development and the door is open for some new focus areas. Overall, recommended.

Rating: A

A Declaration Worthy of Reflection

The Bennington Flag. Image from here

Happy 250th Birthday, America!

On July 4th, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the revised Declaration of Independence, making today our nation's birthday. (Side note: they voted for independence on July 2nd, but then spent two days revising wording of the Declaration, finally approving it on July 4th.)

You can (and should) read a transcript of the Declaration of Independence here. Here is my summary:

First paragraph: When a people need to dissolve political ties, they should explain why.

Second: I'll quote the first half as it is the most famous:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .

Governments shouldn't be dissolved for just any reason, but the King of Great Britain is terrible and we need a change.

List: It then lists 27 reasons why the King is terrible.*

Third: We've presented our grievances repeatedly and humbly, but we get only more injury in return. A person who acts like this is a tyrant and unfit to rule.**

Fourth: We told the British people, too, but they also ignored us. We thus must separate and "hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

Fifth: We thus declare "That these United Colonies are . . . Free and Independent States . . ." 

Signatures: It is signed by 56 people from across the 13 colonies. Pennsylvania has the most representation (9) and is thus the best state.***

-----------

On our birthday, I'd like to point out a few things: 

1) "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ."

Our nation, like everything in our lives, is built on faith. On something you cannot prove, but a set of underlying assumptions you operate out of. (Recent books reviewed here talk more about this—see this book by Glenn Sunshine and this one by James K.A. Smith for more.) What were our founding fathers' assumptions? What are ours today? How have they changed? Why does it matter? Worthy questions for reflection.

2) How can we best enjoy (and leverage) our liberty? What does the Bible say about freedom? How are Biblical notions of freedom the same or different? How then should we live? (1 Peter 2:13-17 and Galatians 5:1-15 are good starting points.)

3) Enjoy and reflect on the truth in the below picture (from Etsy).

-----------

*All related to governing America poorly; it doesn't get into personal factors like hygiene, though I suspect (given the realities of the age) that it would have been fair to include.

**Yes, we mean you, King.

***Go Birds

Supergirl

Kara Zor-El is an orphan, sent away as a child from the last city of Krypton to live on Earth like her cousin, Kal-El. She visits occasionally but spends more time on other worlds, trying to drown her pain in drink as she lives out a lonely existence in her spaceship with her dog, Krypto. One day, she encounters Ruthye, a girl bent on vengeance for her family, all of whom were murdered by the Brigands. Those same criminals will soon tranquilize Krypto, giving Kara just days to find them and the antidote. Kara and Ruthye both battle their inner demons as they wrestle with what it means to live in a broken world. Can Krypto be saved? What about their souls?

This film, the second entry in the DC Universe (DCU) after Superman, was darker than its predecessor (beware lots of violence and some language) but still wrestled with good questions and themes. Kara drowns her pain in addiction; Ruthye thirsts for vengeance. Both are wrong, both recognize that in the other, and both help each other find a better way. Ultimately, this film is about the reality of pain in our lives, helping each other through it, and doing good regardless of the pain done to you. Worthy themes indeed. I share more analysis (with spoilers) below.

Rating: B

----

Brief analysis (with spoilers)

Kara and Ruthye both have deep pain . . . and deep problems.

• Kara doesn't really have a home . . . for her, home is wherever her dog Krypto is. Having left Krypton at a much older age than Superman, her heart is heavy. Her dying parents send her to Earth, where they know she will survive and have great power (drawn from any world with a yellow sun). Their message to her: "you must be good" and "protect the powerless." She does these things . . . sometimes. She carries her grief with her and would rather forget her cares in the bottom of a glass; when Ruthye asks her "When did you stop feeling angry?" Kara replies "any day now." She knows drinking won't solve it, but she keeps on.
• Ruthye is consumed with anger and a desire for vengeance. Kara recognizes it immediately and tells her "revenge is overrated," reminding her several times that "revenge won't get you where you want to go" and "if you kill him [the one who murdered her family], it won't take your pain away." Ruthye retorts that drowning in drink isn't the right way, either.

As the two women travel together, they both learn to confront their own weaknesses through the rebukes of the other (which leads to a temporary falling out). They later recognize reality: "I wish it never happened . . . I wish it could go back to the way it was before . . ." but know they cannot. So how do they deal with things as they are? They walk with each other through the pain, and help each other see the light. 

• Ruthye recognizes both the flaws and beauty in Kara, saying "you're not always perfect but you're good. Thank you for taking me with you." 
• Kara helps Ruthye walk away from an opportunity for vengeance, arguing that "your family is with you. Your life will be your revenge." As Kara's parents encouraged earlier in the film to live and do good for the sake of her family, so now she exhorts Ruthye to do the same. 

Intriguingly, after Kara helps Ruthye walk away, she returns to the antagonist and stabs him twice. "This one is for my dog . . . and this one is for what you did to that girl's family." This seems to fly in the face of the 'don't take vengeance' message she just presented to Ruthye. Is that hypocrisy? Potentially; on the one hand, it sure seems like it. On the other, the bad guy makes it clear he is going to keep on doing terrible things, so Kara may be doing it as a form of justice. She could also be taking the vengeance on herself so Ruthye isn't burdened by it. It's an intriguing ending that makes you think.

At the end, Kara returns to Earth and meets her cousin. She decides it is time to stay on Earth for a while . . . she will no longer run from her pain.

Kara is an interesting character. Several times she has the opportunity to get the antidote, but saving others always comes first. She consistently displays both good and selfishness. Watching her wrestle with that is the focus (and highlight) of the film. 

Midterm Report

image from here

Reflecting is important (more on that here). We're halfway through 2026. Each year, I set and present my goals for the year in January. Today, I remind myself of the goals and look at how it's going.

Spiritual
- Meditate more.
- Love self-forgetfully.
- Be thankful.

I don't meditate nearly enough. Loving self-forgetfully varies by the day (or hour, honestly), but I am doing a better job keeping it in my mind. And same goes for thankfulness; better than it was, but not where it should be.

Nutritional/Fitness
- Keep weight under 180 lbs.
- Develop underused muscles.

Meh. I stand at 185 lbs this morning, the point around which I have been hovering all year. I have put some muscle back on (after last year's shoulder surgery), but I still believe 180 lbs is my ideal. Need to bear down and be more disciplined. For underused muscles, I am making some effort there but not enough.

Reading
- Read 40 books.

This one is going well; over halfway there and enjoying the hobby.

Household Management
- Minimize/declutter the home.

We've made some minor strides here, but much remains to be done. It is hard getting the kids on-board.

Overall

Things are going okay, but could be better. The trends are positive but work remains.

Grade: B-

The Art of Asking Better Questions (J.R. Briggs)

"We live in a world that has conditioned us toward answers . . . asking good questions is a lost art." So begins J.R. Briggs in his book The Art of Asking Better Questions. An outline follows.

"Asking better questions is a mindset. It is a posture. A way of life." And when we ask more (and better) questions with genuine interest in, and love for, others, everyone wins. "Asking great questions has the power and potential to improve the quality of every single area of life—your relationships, your career, your faith, and your future." And so this book is "about questioning-asking, where we wseek to ask questions that emphasize honor, care, discovery, and growth."

Why do we ask questions? For clarity and engagement. To cultivate connection and intimacy. To "scrutinize our presuppositions and help to dismantle assumptions." The questions we ask reveal our values and shape our thoughts. Asking genuine questions means giving others attention, which is a gift and form of generosity; questions "make conversations go deeper and last longer."

The author's four essentials to asking great questions:

- Curiosity. "Curiosity shines a spotlight, brings awreness to our assumptions and blind spots, and opens doors."

- Wisdom. We must ask questions wisely. "The questions we ask, how we ask them, and why we ask them at all reveal a great deal about who we are at our very core."

- Humility. "Great question-askers are fully aware of and quite comfortable with their ignorance."

- Courage. We have "to be confident in our lack of knowing, to willfully admit we are ignorant about a particular topic."

And he provides the Four Levels of Good Questions:

- Level One: Questions for information (simple facts).

- Level Two: Questions for interaction (thoughts and emotions).

- Level Three: Questions for understanding (feelings and desires).

- Level Four: Questions for transformation (vulnerability and intimacy).

He then looks at various things, including:

- The questions we ask ourselves. What does that reveal? Do we assume others are asking the same questions?

- Why does God ask questions? What does that reveal about His heart? 

- Why does Jesus ask questions? Here, he looks at the centrality of questions in Jesus' life, the six reasons He asked lots of questions, the types of questions he asked, and more.

- What questions do we ask God? How does question-asking help spiritual formation?

He concludes with practical ways to ask better questions: nine ways to prepare, 20 practices you can do while asking questions, and how to look back and reflect.

He offers several resources in the back of the book, including a discussion guide, lists of questions to ask yourself, discussion questions for faith communities, and fascinating facts about the questions Jesus asked.

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

I liked a lot of things in this book. I need to ask better/higher-level questions, and this gave me the tools to help. It reminded me of the importance of good questions and how they cultivate connection and community. It was valuable to study how God asks questions. This is a good resource.

At the same time, the book got repetitive; he spends a lot of time across several chapters convincing us of the need for and benefit of questions. I was sold early, so that got old and muddled the distinctiveness of each chapter. This could have been shorter.

I did like that he offered lots of questions throughout the book; here are my three favorite:

How can I be helpful?

Do you want to be helped, hugged, or heard?

Why am I bothered right now? 

Rating: B

The Two Towers Deck-Building Game

Today's review is of the 2013 release, The Two Towers Deck-Building Game (hereafter, Towers DBG). For 2-5 players, it takes 30 minutes.

Overview

You are one of the heroes from The Two Towers movie; your goal is to have the most victory points. In this deck-building game, each player starts with a 10-card deck (one of which is based on your chosen hero) and draws 5 cards per turn. On your turn, you play the cards to gain power, with which you buy cards in the 'path' or defeat arch-villains; in either case, the chosen cards go into your discard pile, which is shuffled to make a new deck when you run out of cards. Over the course of the game, your hand will get increasingly powerful. Can you prevail?

The game contents; image from here

This game is a sister to The Fellowship of the Ring DBG and nearly identical; the only difference here is wall cards which provide an alternate way to end the game. 

Review

In the same game family as the DC Deck-building Game, this has all the pros and cons of that line. It is quick to learn, fun to play, and a little strange that you can buy villains from the path to incorporate into your deck (though thematically I can buy it if you look at it as 'gaining experience' from defeating them). The addition of wall cards was a helpful way to accelerate the game's end (sometimes these drag on). Overall, recommended for a light experience. 

Rating: A-

Tournament at Avalon

Today's review is of the 2020 release, Tournament at Avalon. For 3-6 players, it takes 45 minutes.

Overview

You and your friends are invited to a tournament at Avalon, in the legendary time of King Arthur. Your goal is to have the highest health when the first person is eliminated (drops to zero health). Do you have the strength to prevail?

Tournament at Avalon is a trick-taking game . . . where you don't want to take tricks. You start with 400 health. Each player has a special protagonist and companion that grants them unique abilities (see below illustration). Companion abilities can be activated only after a player falls to or below the health level indicated on the companion card (and this varies by protagonist/companion). 

the protagonist/companion cards; image from here

Each round, players are dealt 12 weapon cards, passing three of their choice to their left (or right; it alternates). Then the player with the lowest health starts the first trick ('melee' in the game's parlance) by playing a card. In clockwise order, the other players follow suit (if they can) or play an alchemy card (wildcard) or special weapon card. If a player has no legal card to play, they are 'shamed,' discarding a card and taking 5 damage. The lowest number takes the trick, putting the card pile in front of them, then playing a card to start the next melee. Play continues in such fashion until one or more players have no cards left. Then each player tallies the damage from the cards they have taken (generally 5 points per card, but some do 10 or 25 points of damage), lowers their health total accordingly, and the godsend cards are dealt.

Godsend cards provide boons to players who are hurting, granting special abilities that can help them (or hurt others). These cards are dealt to players from lowest health on up; the number of players who get a card first depends on the total playing and the round. But then there is a second dealing of godsend cards if the current leader is 100 or more health points ahead of others, so it is possible for players to draw more than one godsend card per round.

The game ends whenever a person drops to zero health (probably after a round completes). Then the players with the highest health wins!

Review

This is a sister game to 2017's Tournament at Camelot, with largely the same rules and basic weapon cards, but with new character/companion pairs and godsend cards. The games (or cards in them) can be mixed and matched to suit your fancy, or combined to play with 7-8 players.

Overall, this one was okay. Thought I rated the sister game highly, this one felt too complex and chaotic/confusing when you added the godsend cards. (I looked at Camelot's godsend cards and found them a touch simpler.) It has its fun moments, but seems to drag on interminably (it took way longer than 45 minutes). It was fun to have new protagonist/companion abilities, so I'm tempted to just pull those out, put them in with the Camelot game . . . we'll see. This one is okay, but check out Camelot first if you like Arthurian lore and trick-taking games.

Rating: B-

A Field Guide on Gender and Sexuality (Ligonier Ministries)

This book, produced by Ligonier Ministries, "offers biblical answers to questions about gender, sexuality, and identity." It is separated into four categories with seven questions in each:

• Being Human
• Homosexuality and Transgenderism 
• Events and Associations
• The Gospel and Love

Topics include (but are not limited to) what it means to be made in God's image, the purpose of sex, thoughts on identity, sex, gender, and same-sex attraction, attending certain events, showing compassion, and more.

This work is a solid starting point for people seeking to learn what the Bible says on these hot-button topics. In general, it does a good job. Relevant Scriptures are presented well. In some places, the answers felt overly stark and perhaps not as nuanced as wisdom would require (I questioned an answer or two). And there is more to be said on these matters (but it is an introduction, so brevity is expected). Overall, recommended.

Rating: B+

Jack (Marilynne Robinson)

Jack is a love story. It is about John Boughton, a hopeless ne'er-do-well and preacher's son, and his relationship with Della Miles, a teacher and bishop's daughter. Set in post-WWII St. Louis, their interracial romance is illegal; Jack must navigate this tense situation while he deals with his own self-loathing and checkered past.

Jack is hopeless. "No one had done him any real harm, except himself." He clings to Robert Frost's verse as a life summary:

I have been one acquainted with the night.

I have walked out in rain—and back in rain.

After a stint in prison (ironically for a crime he did not commit), he lives in a sort of self-imposed exile, living off his brothers' generosity and spending time doing odd jobs, being a bum, engaging in petty theft, or alcoholism. He believes that "he had nothing to give anyone, that his life was an intricate tangle of futility . . ." and takes to keeping away from people, figuring that "keeping his distance was a favor, a courtesy, to all those strangers who might, probably would, emerge somehow poorer for proximity to him." Intensely lonely, he wonders "How do people live?" Then came Miss Della Miles.

Della has bright prospects, fraught though they be with the realities of being a colored woman in that era. She has been to college, has strong family support, and has her life ahead of her. Through a series of odd events, Jack and Della meet and, shockingly, enjoy each other's company. They fall in love. Jack realizes "that there is nothing more I want from life. If I could imagine an eternity of sitting here with you talking nonsense, there'd be nothing more I would want . . . " But their relationship is star-crossed from the start as Jack wrestles with his past and how/why good should come to him, and what it means to love and be loved.

Jack tries to push Della away. He warns her: "I'm ridiculous. It never changes. Every day is a new proof." "I'm ruining things. I do that. I try to keep to myself, and it happens, anyway." He wrestles with her love and grace: "Flourishing seemed wrong in a man so disheartened as he was." He confesses to a pastor: "forgiveness scares me. It seems like a kind of antidote to regret, and there are things I haven't regretted sufficiently." He is confronted with the reality that "Shame was a very old habit with him. He had long considered it pentitential, payment extracted in the form of steady, tolerable misery, against a debt he would never settle."

As Jack wrestles, Della sticks by his side. His pastor reminds him that the good things he does are just as much a part of him as his failures. And that there is grace for the latter: "If the Lord thinks you need punishing, you can trust Him to see to it. He knows where to find you. If He's showing you a little grace in the meantime, He probably won't mind if you enjoy it." In this world where guilt and grace meet, what should be his focus?

----------

Set in the same world as her other novels (Gilead, Home, and Lila), it was a delight to find out more about the wayward son that was mentioned in them. As with the others, here Robinson writes powerfully and poetically on themes of brokenness and grace. She does that well. That said, I wish a few things were different:

- one scene dragged on interminably

- it was sometimes hard to follow the chronology of events; I couldn't tell the flashbacks from the current storyline in places. I couldn't tell if that was deliberate (an echo of Jack's internal confusion) or unintentional

- the racial theme wasn't covered nearly as much as Jack's internal wrestlings, making it seem mildly imbalanced

- you never see Jack and Della come home to Gilead; I had hoped for that (which was covered in Home) to be examined from his perspective

Overall, though, this remains an excellent and worthy read. I was engrossed and enchanted.

Rating: A-