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

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

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-

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

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

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-

Daredevil: Lockdown

Continuing from last time . . .

Daredevil is still behind bars, and Elektra is still acting in his stead. But things are coming to a head in Hell's Kitchen . . . Bullseye is on the loose, seemingly everywhere and terrorizing the city. Mayor Wilson Fisk isn't happy with the new Kingpin and puts things in motion to handle the situation. And Daredevil uncovers a plot that may unleash yet another plague on the city . . .

This volume was in line with the others: solid. This is a mild ending of sorts, with Matt coming to grips with who he is and what he must do ("what's right"), even if that is a bit wishy-washy (as the standard is never defined). Still, I was intrigued by one of his conclusions: that maybe what his enemies need isn't punishment but grace and contentment. It's not fully the gospel, but it's on the path.

Rating: A-

Why You Think the Way You Do (Glenn Sunshine)

In Why You Think the Way You Do, Glenn Sunshine traces the history and evolution of western worldviews "from Rome to Home." His interest "is in the fundamental ideas that shaped the culture and how those ideas were lived out in Western society" and "with the impact Christianity had on worldviews and thus on culture." A summary follows.

"A worldview is the framework you use to interpret the world and your place in it." Worldviews operate "below the radar, behind the scenes, guiding our thoughts, words, and actions and only rarely being examined or analyzed." And "to understand a culture or civilization, you have to understand its wordview."

Ancient Rome

Rome had a variety of religions, most of which were pagan. Its pantheon was ever-growing as it would absorb the deities of those it conquered. Most of its gods were "feared, not loved." "Religious rituals were designed to appease deities, not please them." In this era, Plato and his teachings had a huge role. In Platonism, "ideas are the foundation for reality, [so] clear thinking and logic are the best approaches to understanding the world." It wasn't about observation but logic. He believed that "spirit was superior to matter" and had a hierarchy of being that started with the One ("a being of pure spirit"), from whom all other deities came. (Humans were down on the list, but above animals and plants.) Aristotle (also influential) would follow suit in his logic over observation approach.

Within the Empire, Jews had a different deity. "The God of Israel . . . is personal and created the world as a voluntary act." And "God created humanity in his image as his steward and regent in overseeing the rest of the created world." Eventually, a Jewish sect—Christianity—would arise that held the same beliefs (plus others, obviously, including holding Jesus as Lord and Savior). Christians claimed that their God was alone the only God—an exclusivity claim that didn't go over well in a pluralistic society. They would be persecuted for centuries . . . until Constantine.

The Roman Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, making Christianity a legal religion. He is said to have converted himself. And "the transition from being a persecuted minority religion to being the favored faith of the emperor inevitably forged ties between church and state that have been a driving force in Western political life ever since." And when the Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476, the church—often the only administrative unit left in a city—would fill the vacuum.

Medieval World

The church and state influenced each other after Constantine. After Rome fell, a "blending of Germanic and Roman cultures with Christianity . . . occurred across the board in all areas of life during these centuries. The different strands influenced each other and gradually blended together to form a new worldview . . " Little survives from that time (hence "Dark Ages"), though of course development continued in many spheres. Platonic humanism arose, and around this time, the works of Aristotle were (re)discovered, leading to scholasticism (a method of study). People viewed it as "safer and more reliable to build our understanding of the world on the base of ancient authorities." But this had its issues, too, and the Condemnations of 1277 "liberated thinking from its slavish dependence on Aristotle." Ultimately, 

The medieval mind assumed that the rational God created a rational universe and that human beings, made in the image of God, were rational as well and could undersatnd the universe. Although they believed that miracles could occur, they also believed that God idd not need to intervene actively for the world to function normally. God created it to operate in a certain way, and the rules that governed its behavior could be discovered by human investigation. Contrary to the assumptions of classical thinkers . . . the best method of learning about the world was not deductive reasoning but direct study and examination fo the world . . [which] laid the foundation for [science].

Christian thoughts influenced other spheres of worldview, too. Ideas that the physical world was real, it and work were inherently good, and property rights were important, all came from the Bible. Augustine, an important thinker of the period, developed ideas of the "City of God" (based on love of God and neighbor) and "City of Man" (based on love of self) which explained the good (and evil) in the world and how society could function with both being true. 

"Starting in the late 1400s, however, Europe was jolted by a series of movements and discoveries that threatened the underlying pillars of medieval thought. The Italian Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the European discovery of the Americas, and the rediscovery of an ancient form of skepticism set the stage for momentous changes in the European worldview."

Renaissance, Reformation, and the New World

Based in part on a calamitious fourteenth century (which included "economic decline, continent-wide crop failures, the Hundred Years War, . . . [and] the Black Death"), some "began to argue that Rome was the epitome of civilization, and when Rome fell, civilization ended." They were obsessed with classical civilization (Greece and Rome), but still drew a lot of their approach from medieval times. Like the era that preceded them, they believed "that truth existed and could be known with certainty. They also believed (obviously) that the best guide to truth was the past, and that a unified system of truth could be found by studying past authors, aiming at a grand synthesis of all human knowledge." But they encountered a problem: as they studied the past, Renaissance thinkers found that the scholars of bygone eras didn't agree. This was on problem in the time (more on this below).

Another challenge was the Protestant Reformation. They looked to the Bible as the sole authority (and not the Papacy or tradition) and "insisted that all believers are priests" (and thus elevated 'secular' roles to being sacred callings, too). In some cases, "the lines between civil and ecclesiastical functions blurred," which could mean enforcing moral standards. The rise of competing churches made people question which was right, and religious wars followed (to include the English Civil War and the Thirty Years' War). Those horrific experiences led people to start questioning if we could truly be certain of religion . . . or anything.

Finally, the discovery of the New World challenged peoples' worldview as it raised troubling questions about God and the Bible (because how could Native Americans, having not been exposed to the Gospel for centuries, possibly be saved?). This, plus the above issues and the discovery of an ancient thinker, Pyrrho (who claimed that knowing anything with certainty was impossible), further stressed the worldview.

Scientific Revolution, Deism, and Enlightenment

A slew of thinkers arose (Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, and Newton among others) who "used both science and Scripture" in their investigations and debates. Collectively, these "laid the foundation for a new epistemology in Europe." "Although the past was respected, scholars increasingly believed that they could build on and improve on past authors, and even prove them wrong. The ancients were no longer 'authorities' but merely people who wrote down ideas that might be right or wrong. Study, analysis, and, where possible, testing became more important than simply citing Aristotle. In short, the idea of progress emerged, and with it, a greater optimisim about human potential." The Christian underpinning remained (a rational God made a rational world that we as rational creatures can understand), which still left "room for supernatural intervention," but a shift was coming.

In the early seventeenth century, there was a shift to looking for exclusively rational explanations of the world, and "a similar trend toward reason occurred in religion." In addition, "many people began to think of religious passions as politically and socially dangerous." A new worldview called deism arose.

In traditional/orthodox Christianity, God was understood to be infinite, creator/sustainer of the universe, transcendent yet immanent/personal and relational. Deists believed some of this . . . to them, "God is infinite but not personal; he is creator but the universe operates on its own without any involvement by God; and he is transcendent but not immanent." Deists "believed that reason was the only guide to turth in any area of life, including religion." They respected the ethics in the Bible but "did not accept its miracles, answered prayers, and interventionist view of God."

In other areas, reason also took precedence. In economics, politics, philosophy, and other areas, "knowledge came exclusively from human reason and could be expected to grow and improve over time, based on the further accumulation of experience." The "material world was the only one that mattered." They still had some underlying Christian influence, however, like "the idea of inalienable, God-given rights, which led to the Enlightenment emphasis on life, liberty, property, and virtue." And the idea of original sin was retained (especially in America), leading to our founders establishing a government with checks and balances since humans are so easily corrupted. But things were still changing, and modernity was coming.

Modernity

Our modern worldview came about in the nineteenth century. Many were functionally deistic, and in that view, God was only there to create the universe. "If another alternative can be found to explain how the universe got here, we can safely eliminate God from the system altogether." In that case, what we would be left with was "a world consisting only of matter and energy—a metaphysical system known as naturalism or materialism." 

Related is the idea of what science is. It used to mean simply knowledge, but now came to refer to only studies that followed the scientific method. "Now only things that could be tested and confirmed through the scientific method qualified as real knowledge; everything else was dismissed as subjective or irrelevant." Given some successes in the natural sciences, this gave rise to "the attempt to apply the scientific methods to solve social problems" in many other fields of study. 

Enter Charles Darwin. His theories lent credence to the naturalistic position, though (interestingly) "Darwinism is not itself subject to the scientific method any more than anything in history is. The past is over; you cannot revisit it, observe it, test it, or experiment on it. All you can do is look at the surviving evidence and try to make sense of it." Ultimately, this shows that "Darwinism is not a scientific theory but a worldview assumption, and as such, it is not falsifiable." It is an article of faith that serves as a presupposition, and it along with materialism had broad implications for other fields.

What about meaning in life? The materialistic worldview "disenchanted" the world. "Materialism provides a ready answer to the question of the meaning or purpose of life: there is none." This leads to nihilism, but since that is hard for most to stomach, more people week to "re-enchant" and embraced existentialism ("nihilism-lite"), which "means that we are radically free to determine what we do and who we are." Things matter—because we say so (since we have rejected other authorities).

Postmodernism

Two horrific World Wars and other calamities in the twentieth century led people to re-think a purely materialistic view. Maybe there is right and wrong . . . but if there is some truth out there that cannot be scientifically proven . . . how do we learn it? Enter deconstructionism—in literature, that is "the idea that texts can be deconstructed and reconstructed as suits the reader." That can be applied to other things, too. If knowing is impossible, we can at least make our own meaning. Postmodern thought "is deconstructionism-lite," rejecting objective truth and insisting on cultural/moral relativity, but holding to "the idea that truth is relative and personal." 

Hence we arrive at present day. "You alone decide what is true and false, right and wrong, for yourself. The only limitation is that you can do nothing that infringes on someone else's freedom." The greatest virtue in such a system? Tolerance. "Not only can you not do anything that limits another's freedom . . . you cannot suggest that there is anything wrong with what they decide to do with their freedom." And not only can you not criticize another, but competing views "must be positively affirmed and celebrated." Which leads to all manner of things, including self-determination of identity, gender, and so on. Where are we now? In many ways, back at Rome, with many of their cultural practices and values being embraced in the public square.

-----

At only 215 pages, this book obviously only skimmed the surface of worldviews and how they have changed over the centuries. That said, it is an excellent work. Sunshine writes well and has a gift for explaining things succinctly and clearly. While I would have preferred some more exploration of the nuances associated with each period, I appreciate that this is intended to be an introduction only. In that, it succeeds. Highly recommended for those interesting in learning more about "how we got here."

Rating: A

How (Not) to be Secular (James K.A. Smith)

In 2007, Philosopher Charles Taylor published A Secular Age, “a book that offers a genealogy of the secular and an archaeology of our angst.” It looks at where we are and how we got here. And his approach is “not concerned with what people believe as much as with what is believable.”

In 2014, Theologian James K.A. Smith published How (Not) to be Secular, which is "a book about a book—a small field guide to a much larger scholarly tome." It takes Taylor's magisterial 900-page work and boils it down to a 133-page guide.

In 2026, amateur blogger John Mark McLean published this post, which is a 3-page summary of the book that summarizes Taylor. (I dare you to summarize my summary of Smith's summary of Taylor.)

---------

We live in a secular age. But what is that? Taylor defines three kinds of secular.

Secular₁: in classical/medieval times, temporal or earthly things (which presupposes a sacred/secular divide).

Secular₂: “a nonsectarian, neutral, and areligious space or standpoint.” (Which presupposes such a stance is possible.) Here, people grow disenchanted with religion, believing it to be irrational and divisive, and argue it is possible to “be governed by universal, neutral rationality.”

Secular₃: Here, “religious belief or belief in God is understood to be one option among others, and thus contestable (and contested). At issue here is a shift in ‘conditions of belief.’”

He believes we inhabit a Secular₃ age that masquerades as a Secular₂ age. It claims neutrality and poses as a natural shift away from religion that brings a positive benefit. Being secular is “not just unbelief,” however. “The emergence of the secular is also bound up with the production of a new option—the possibility of exclusive humanism as a viable social imaginary—a way of constructing meaning and significance without any reference to the divine or transcendence.” Our underlying framework has changed. So what happened?

In medieval times, Taylor argues its social imaginary contained three things:

1. “The natural world was constituted as a cosmos that functioned . . . as a sign that pointed beyond itself, to what was more than nature.”
2. “Society itself was understood as something grounded in a higher reality; earthly kingdoms were grounded in a heavenly kingdom.”
3. “People lived in an enchanted world, a world ‘charged’ with presences, that was open and vulnerable, not closed and self-sufficient.”

Over centuries, there was a shift (due to a host of factors, including the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Reformation). In modernity, he sees five elements:

1. “Disenchantment and the ‘Buffered’ Modern Self.” Things have natural causes/explanations, it’s more about our mind and interpretation, and we are insulated/isolated.
2. “Living Social.” Individuals “are the locus of meaning . . . [so] disbelief no longer has social consequences.”
3. “The carnival is over: ‘Lowering the Bar’ for Flourishing.” Instead of “trying to maintain an equilibrium between the demands of creaturely life and the expectations for eternal life,” the modern age says “you can stop being burdened by what eternity/salvation demands and simply frame ultimate flourishing within this world.”
4. “The Fullness of Time.” There used to be the notion that “time is transcended by ‘higher’ time” which is “not merely chronological or linear.” But here, “nothing ‘higher’ impinges on our calendars—only the tick-tock of chronos, and the self-imposed burdens of our ‘projects.’”
5. “From Cosmos to Universe.” “The shift from cosmos to universe—from ‘creation’ to ‘nature’—makes it possible to now imagine meaning and significance as contained within the universe itself, and autonomous, independent ‘meaning’ that is unhooked from any sort of transcendent narrative.”

And the tide kept turning. He talks about other shifts, including a “fourfold process of ‘immanentization.’”

• A shift away from “a sense of obligation ‘beyond’ human flourishing” [Christians say “thy will be done” of God] to “a new emphasis: providence is primarily about ordering this world for mutual benefit, particularly economic benefit.”
• A shift away from needing grace to “we can figure this out without assistance.”
• A shift away from God’s inscrutability/mysterious ways to “mystery can no longer be tolerated.”
• A shift away from the idea that God is transforming us (making all things new!). “We lose the sense that humanity’s end transcends its current configurations . . .”

He also sees a shift in politics to a “modern moral order” which “amounts to an ordering of society for mutual benefit” but is “unhooked from the specifics of Christian doctrines and tethered to a more generic deistic god,” making it “independent of any specific—and hence contestable—claims about . . . God.” “The ultimate and transcendent are retained but marginalized and made increasingly irrelevant.” This “is a kind of secularization of Christian universalism.”

He sees the shift in religion, too. To a view that God is impersonal and inactive.

What do these shifts mean in aggregate? It has changed “what we take for granted.”

Aside: we all live with “an unchallenged framework” that “becomes part of the background that governs our being-in-the-world.” And that “our ‘take’ is not something reasoned to as much as it is something we reason from.” All of us live with basic orientations that (no matter how seemingly ‘neutral’) are value-laden. What do you consider uncontestable (or uncritically accept)? That is a clue to your framework. Nobody is intellectually independent; we all serve some authority, even if we don’t recognize it.

Where are we today? The shifts mentioned above have produced a different imaginary (what Taylor calls “exclusive humanism”). And yet “Our secular age is [not] an age of disbelief; it’s an age of believing otherwise. We can’t tolerate living in a world without meaning. So if the transcendence that previously gave significance to the world is lost, we need a new account of meaning—a new ‘imaginary’ that enables us to imagine a meaningful life within this now self-sufficient universe of gas and fire.” And while some “assume that this is just ‘the way things are,’ in fact what we take for granted is contingent and contestable.” And we all contest it, in our own way, as we sense something has been lost. “’We moderns’ are not entirely comfortable with modernity.”

So we live in a time “where ‘the secular’ and ‘the religious’ haunt each other in a mutual dance of displacement and decentering.” Indeed, “our age is haunted. On the one hand, we live under a brass heaven, ensconced in immanence. We live in the twilight of both gods and idols. But their ghosts have refused to depart, and every once in a while we might be surprised to find ourselves tempted by belief, by intimations of transcendence . . . on the other hand, even as faith endures in our secular age, believing doesn’t come easy. Faith is fraught; confession is haunted by an inescapable sense of its contestability. We don’t believe instead of doubting; we believe while doubting. We’re all Thomas now.”

What is the result of this mutual haunting? A “nova effect”—“an explosion of options for finding (or creating) ‘significance’” because “all sorts of people find themselves caught” in “’cross-pressures’—pushed by the immanence of disenchantment on one side, but also pushed by a sense of significance and transcendence on another side, even if it might be a lost transcendence.” This book’s ultimate argument “is that most of live in this cross-pressured space, where both our agnosticism and our devotion are mutually haunted and haunting.” We have “doubt and longing, faith and questioning.”

Where to from here? How should the Christian respond? Perhaps not by focusing on evidence or data (which in a sense concedes the game and points to human reason as the highest ideal) “but rather to offer an alternative story that offers a more robust, complex understanding of the Christian faith”. Ultimately “the appeal is to a ‘sense,’ a feel for things.” “It is not demonstrable except insofar as it offers a better account of our experience.”

---------

Smith's book is great; I assume Taylor's is, too. A highly useful guide to understanding our times. Recommended.

Rating: A

The Lost Tales of Sir Galahad (Various)

In Howard Pyle's The Story of the Grail and the Passing of Arthur, the author mentions that Sir Galahad had many adventures "of which no account hath been given" before he achieved the Grail. Rejoice . . . for account hath now been given! In this collection from Rabbit Room Press, 25 authors provide as many stories of what happened in that time, claiming discovery of "a hidden trove of medieval manuscripts" that finally shed light on Galahad's adventures.

Listed as for children (aged 8 and up), I was unexpectedly pleased with this volume. The authors do a good job maintaining the spirit of classic Arthurian tales while infusing a more accurate (yet softly-spoken) Christian message in them. (Many of the original tales show a distorted/works-based view of the Gospel, in my opinion.) There is okay humor and fun cultural references, too (mostly geared towards juveniles, but some gems only adults will catch). Recommended.

Rating: A

The Dog Who Wouldn't Be (Farley Mowat)

The Dog Who Wouldn't Be is a humorous memoir about a boy and his dog growing up in Dustbowl-era Saskatchewan (1930s).

Mutt is a unique dog. Bought for four cents off a boy trying to sell ducks, this unorthodox canine had an intriguing life in the Mowat household. His misadventures could infuriate the family (and the locals), but he would grow to be a tremendous (if quirky) hunting dog, much beloved by the boy and parents.

This book is a lot of fun. Mowat is a master of writing—the tales are amusing enough, but the delivery (his words and phrases are nigh-poetic) increases the enjoyment tenfold. It's more than humorous, though; it is a poignant look at a bygone era, when boyhood meant exploration and adventure, traipsing around with a dog (or an owl . . .) before modernity's technology and limitations. It also offered glimpses into the all-too-familiar (and often hilarious) relational dynamics between husband and wife, parent and son. Highly recommended.

Rating: A

God & Culture (Various)

God & Culture is a 1993 work by a number of notable theologians of the time, dedicated to honoring Carl F.H. Henry. It presents essays on a number of topics related to culture, including pluralism, eschatology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, history, economics, law, politics, literature, art, media, science, environmentalism, bioethics, leisure, and more.

Since this covers a wide range, I make no attempt to summarize it here. I recorded eight pages worth of notes for a class I am preparing . . . of those, I present a few highlights below as representative of themes throughout the book.

Culture is "a shared set of human activities and works that express ultimate beliefs and values." It matters because it is "the fruit of a theology or worldview." (Kevin Vanhoozer)

Pluralism is the expectation of our age, and open-mindedness with it. This pervades our culture. But note: "in the popular mind open-mindedness is no longer connected with a willingness to consider alternative views but with a dogmatic relativizing of all views." (D.A. Carson) People claim there is no objective truth, which is self-contradictory, as that is held up as an objective standard. We all operate with some truth in mind.

Our culture (and all disciplines) are "shaped by shared assumptions and value commitments." (Robert Priest) Our work and approach to it reflects "a value-laden judgment that is how the world ought to be described." (Ian Smith) But because of our sinful natures, "What we want, heaven help us, is simultaneously to be perfectly ruled and perfectly free." (Philip Johnson) In recent centuries, we appeal to reason. But "If human reason aspires to be the judge of God’s statements, it makes itself the unevaluated evaluator—which is to say that it takes God’s place." (Philip Johnson) One key here is recognizing our assumptions (both individually and collectively held) and asking how they align to what we claim to be ultimately true. What are our presuppositions—unquestioned (and largely unprovable) truths that drive us?

As we examine culture, we need to sift it finely. It may be that we approve of one aspect "without endorsing all of it," or we might "disagree with part of it without devaluing it entirely." (Leland Ryken)

--------

As with any compilation, the entries varied. Some essays were outstanding; others only so-so. Some have stood up well; others felt dated (thirty years is a long time in terms of cultural change—society has changed a lot since then). But overall, this is a solid read and recommended.

Rating: A-

Carl's Doomsday Scenario (Matt Dinniman)

Picking up from last time, where Carl and Princess Donut made it through the first two levels of the dungeon that has become their world now that the Apocalypse has come (and is televised) . . .

Level three is the Over City—a sprawling world replete with ruins and echoes of a past calamity that have left its surviving inhabits in rough shape. But still dangerous shape—even the inhabited towns hold secrets and horrors that force our heroes to choose: will they help these pitiful souls and complete mysterious quests? Or is it really all about survival?

I enjoyed book one well enough, but I expected the sequel to be more of the same and grow stale. I was wrong. I liked this better—though the entire book covers just one level (remember, there are 18 total . . .), there is a surpising depth to this (on top of the endearing absurdity) that makes the tale thoroughly engrossing. The standard warnings from before apply: beware profanity/violence/crude humor. But if you can stomach that, this is a good one. And I'm hooked. 

Rating: A

Daredevil: Doing Time

Continuing from last time . . .

Daredevil is in prison, wrestling with his conscience and faith as friends try to talk him out of his decision to serve behind bars. Elektra has assumed his role as protector of Hell's Kitchen. And enemies abound . . . the Knulls have invaded.* The new Kingpin is asserting herself. And the prison warden wants Matt dead . . . 

This was a good story, looking at Matt fighting with himself on what it means to be a man of God. The art was great, too. The only detriment was the Knull storyline, that seem to burst in and disappear just as quickly. Apparently that is part of a larger story arc, and as I haven't read the other titles, I was lost there. Otherwise, this is solid.

Rating: A-

*Which is apparently part of the King in Black event.

Dungeon Crawler Carl (Matt Dinniman)

One minute, Carl is trying to coax his ex-girlfriend's cat (Princess Donut) out of a tree in the middle of a freezing night. The next, he finds himself one of Earth's few survivors as he is shepherded into a dungeon and told to fight for his life. Apparently, the apocalypse will be televised to an intergalactic audience, and Carl and Donut must find a way to survive by gaining new skills, leveling up, and finding a stairway to the next level of the dungeon before the current one collapses. If they can make it to level 18, they may just survive . . . but this game might be rigged.

This book—the first in a Literary Role-Playing Game (LitRPG) series—is all the rage, and I wanted to see why. I enjoyed it; its absurdist humor and clear parallels to video game RPGs were fun (but beware profanity, innuendo, and violence). There is also an overarching element of mystery involving those responsible for Earth's collapse and their motives/goals which was captivating and stays unresolved as the book ends. Speaking of—it ends somewhat abruptly, making it clear that the series is not a sequence of self-contained tales but one long story arc. With book eight due out this year and no end in sight, I am questioning if I want to invest in reading the rest of the series. But I do want to know what happens next . . . so I'll keep going for now.

Rating: B+

The Clay Pot Conspiracy (Dave Harvey)

In The Clay Pot Conspiracy, Pastor Dave Harvey argues that for those in ministry, "leadership was never about exactling out strengths. God's plan was always to deliver his strength through our weakness." He delivers an equation:

Our Weakness + God's Power = Resilient Ministry

and then discusses what he calls 'seven wonders' that collectively show this to be true:

1. Store Treasure in Clay (see 2 Corinthians 4:7)
• Our "weakness reveals our inadequacy," and reveals that "it's about God's power, not ours. It's about God's grace, not our grit." "The perfection of Christ is greater than the cracks in your pot."
2. Make Death Produce Life (see 2 Corinthians 4:8-9)
• "Paul's vision of leadership was to carry death in your body so that God can display the life of Jesus." "What if the heart of leadership is more about becoming living displays of broken vitality?" What if God is "silencing one brand of confidence to cultivate another"?
• "Your burdens and pain are not obstacles to resilience. They're the means of producing it."
3. Let Repentance Stoke Resilience
• We always need to repent. When we see more of Christ, we see more of our sin—and it never ends. "The biggest threat to leadership resilience is our unrelenting battle against indwelling sin."
• "Sin always subverts God's good things with the promise that vice will deliver a greater delight." "Sin cons, then consumes. It deceives, then devours." We fight and fail and keep fighting. Ultimately, "our brokenness moves us toward humility and dependence, not moral perfection."
4. Learn Love When the Church Wounds You
• "We are limited and fallible—flawed shepherds leading imperfect sheep." "To truly love the church, we must come to terms with her imperfections." People will hurt us (and we them). Our love will be "misunderstood or unrequited. Or . . . our own wins [will] blunt the impact or intent of our friendship or service." "The church will disappoint you in ways that attack your faith to love and serve her." "Yet even when she acts ugly, she is still Christ's bride. You must see her, not simply by how she fails but in light of who she is becoming."
5. Remember God Uses Enemies to Enlarge Your Soul (see Psalm 56)
• "Leadership is a call to come under assault." "God will use our enemies to uncover our idols. He will use foes to build our faith." "God will help you embody what you have said to others about grace and love."
6. Build Strong Teams Through Weak Leaders
• We tend to focus on the wrong things when building teams. Instead, we should "aim for HEALTHY practices:"
• Honor others
• Encourage more than you want to be encouraged
• Acknowledge weaknesses more than parading strength
• Look to the interests of others
• Talk less, and listen more
• Help the weak
• Yearn for Christ
7. Run Together to Finish Well
• "God made us relational, and he made ministry a shared endeeavor." Like Christian in John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, we are "never a stunning specimen of determined law-keeping." We are prone to wander and stumble . . . and yet we are never running the race alone. The Lord puts people in our lives to help us, and empowers us with His spirit. We will finish the race well, but we will not do it alone. We must run together. 

This book's content was outstanding; the delivery was okay. It would have benefitted from more exploration and examples. Some things were powerful mentioned in passing but could have been moreso if more deeply probed. Nevertheless, check this one out. 

Rating: A-

Daredevil: Truth/Dare

Continuing from last time . . .

Things are returning to normal in Hell's Kitchen. Well, normal for Hell's Kitchen . . . the mob war has been quieted as Kingpin manipulates things to his liking. Matt seeks a way to save the residents from losing their homes as he wrestles with his past demons. Ultimately, he decides to turn himself in . . . Daredevil is going to jail. Who will protect the people now?

An excellent story continues . . . this one felt a bit like important backstory as the tale builds to a crescendo.

Rating: A-

The Last Manager (John W. Miller)

The Last Manager is a biography about Earl Weaver, the legendary and controversial manager of the Baltimore Orioles from 1968-82 and 85-86. It covers his childhood in St. Louis, minor-league career,  brief foray into the big leagues, years spent at the O's helm, and life after retirement. 

Weaver was a spitfire. He yelled at Umps. He kicked dirt on home plate. He screamed at this players (but never held a grudge). He cussed, smoked, drank, and threatened. Ultimately, he rallied and united his players through hatred—of him.

Weaver was also a visionary. He was years ahead of his time in using data to make decisions. He preached approaches now widely used throughout the sport. He was respected and successful, winning four pennants and one World Series and coaching Hall-of-Famers including Brooks Robinson, Frank Robinson, Jim Palmer, and Cal Ripken Jr.

This book was a fun read, presenting a complex portrait of a man both revered and disdained by friends and foes alike. I wish it was longer. I'd recommend it for baseball fans and middle-aged Orioles fans in particular, whose memories of the players and times mentioned will increase their enjoyment.

Rating: A-

The Way of Kings (Brandon Sanderson)

Roshar is a world subject to fierce tempests called Highstorms. Alethkar, one of the lands therein, is at war against the Parshendi on the Shattered Plains, seeking to avenge their slain king. Against this backdrop . . .

- Kaladin, surgeon-turned-warrior-turned-slave, leads a bridge crew on the Shattered Plains. He wrestles with his blessings and curses, fighting for hope and purpose in a world that seems devoid of both.

- Dalinar, brother to the slain king and uncle to the current, is one of many highprinces fighting the Parshendi. Subject to horrific visions during Highstorms, he fears something is coming . . . and needs to unite his fractious people before it's too late.

- Shallan, ward to the heretic Jasnah in the City of Bells, will stop at nothing to see her family retain its status. But she soon realizes something much bigger is at stake . . .

 

- Szeth-son-son-Vallano is an assassin, beholden to a secret master and unable to disobey or force his own death. Horrified by his lot, he is given one final assignment . . . 

The past is a vapor. The truth is uncertain. Were the Knights Radiant traitors or heroes? Who are the Voidbringers? When is the Last Desolation . . . and can anyone stop it?

So begins The Stormlight Archive, a massive saga (book one was 1250 pages). I had delayed reading this for years because I was daunted by the length; I'm glad I finally picked up this work. I enjoyed the story—it moved along at a good pace, seeming neither complicated nor boring. The characters were excellent. The world was intriguing. There was wisdom, action, suspense, and mystery. As with Tolkien, Sanderson brings the readers into a much larger world and gives us only glimpses. And that's a good thing.

Rating: A