Adam Shields

Summary: "...the truth that God is love lies at the heart of all divine revelation."

I am often reluctant to write about books where I know the authors. It is not because the books are not good, they often are very good. But sometimes it hard to separate the book from the larger lifework of the person that you know outside of just the book.

I didn't meet John Armstrong until about 15 years ago. We had lots of mutual friends because we were both in the Chicago area and were connected to Wheaton College. But it wasn't until I moved to suburban Atlanta that we actually met during an ecumenical meeting here that John hosted and then another conference on friendship in Chicago. We have kept in connect and I try to participate as much as possible in The Initiative, an ecumenical group that grew out of John's earlier work.

I think in many ways The Transforming Fire of Divine Love is a natural outgrowth of John Armstrong's story and his focus on Missional-Ecumenism. Part of what John Armstrong is doing in the The Transforming Fire of Divine Love is narrating his story of how his interaction with both God and other christians moved him from a more closed faith to a more open faith that both recognizes the contributions of other streams of Christianity and recognizes the importance of cooperation and understanding between those steams to become the whole Church.

The Transforming Fire of Divine Love is not a memoir, but he does use his story to illustrate his point. I read Byron Borger's review in his column at Hearts and Minds books and I think that Borger gets it right that The Transforming Fire of Divine Love is interested in not just whether God is love is a true statement, but what we do with the reality of God's love in understanding our theology and our view of the transformation of the Christian's life. I also agree with Borger's point that part of the value of Armstrong's book is that it introduces the reader to the breadth of Christian theology. This is quite quote from Borger:

Love is the key, and he uses everyone from the most dense Orthodox thinkers to dear Max Lucado to sophisticated solid writers like Fleming Rutledge to flesh this out, to underscore its centrality to our faith. He draws on so many great writers that this book actually serves as an introduction to some of the finest thinkers in church history — from the ancient fathers to Kallistos Ware to Frederick Buechner to Karl Rahner to Brad Jersak.

(I have picked up three books that were mentioned or cited so far.)

The Transforming Fire of Divine Love is going to be best for someone that has some background in theology. Not necessarily degrees, but someone who has done some reading in theology. It is not a hard book as much as it is a book that takes seriously theology, not because he sees Christianity as an intellectual exercise, but because Armstrong is grappling with the ways that we have used theology to avoid the call to love.

I think the discussion of God's love and sacrifice is helpful because it raises the problem of starting with the greek philosophical concept of perfection as being unchangeable and "without passions."

Following the greatest Greek philosophers—Aristotle, the Stoics and even the Epicureans—it was argued that “God was without passions.” Tertullian even said, “The Father is incapable of suffering in company with another.” Centuries later Anselm wrote: “Without doubt the divine nature is impassible.” Thomas Aquinas said God cannot “repent, nor be angry or sorrowful, since all these denote passion and defect.” (Note the consistent proximity of emotion with defect.) Shortly after the Protestant Reformation the idea of divine impassibility was confessed in catechisms and confessions. The Westminster Confession (1647), to cite one example, states: “There is but one living and true God, infinite in being and perfection, a most pure Spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions." (p105)

As he develops this case that this historic framing of perfection as being without emotion or unchanging has impacted the way that we understand God's love, he takes seriously the history of that understanding and the ways that our modern understanding critique the older Greek view of perfection.

On the way to exploring how John Armstrong's understanding of God's love has changed over time he there are sections on thinking about God's love in scripture, in creation, through the problem of evil, through the incarnation, the trinity, and other areas. I think that most discussions of God's love end up either with an abstract theological discussion or they end up with a discussion of mysticism or the mystics, or they end up with some type of discussion of the Church as an expression of of God's love for us.

Because of Armstrong's long history of ecumenism and his other books, I am not surprised by some of the ways he talks about the church or mysticism as modes of connection to God. This is a theological book that is trying to make the case that theology is only useful to the extent that it helps us to relationally connect with God. I am going to end with two brief quotes that reflect the point of the book.

Balthasar constantly argued that Christians often treat God’s love as a truth but only in an abstract sense. (As you’ve seen this is what I did for several decades.) Balthasar reasons that for many of us love is not a truth that we allow to impact our daily lives. This is the very thesis of my book. We must allow God’s love to radically impact our lives every day, all the time. (p185)

and

The unnamed author of the classic The Cloud of Unknowing put this well. God can well be loved, but he cannot be thought. By love he can be grasped and held, but by thought, neither grasped nor held. And therefore, though it may be good at times to think specifically of the kindness and excellence of God, and though this may be a light and a part of contemplation, all the same, in the work of contemplation itself, it must be cast down and covered with a cloud of forgetting. (p247)

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-transforming-fi...

Summary: An exploration of Thurgood Marshall’s confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court in 1967 as way to both give a biography and context to Marshall’s work and to explore the ways that that hearing was a preview of later Supreme Court nomination fights.

I picked Showdown up because (it was on sale and) I have not previously read anything specifically about either Thurgood Marshall or Brown v Board. I have read many civil rights era histories that mention both, but none that were explicitly about just those subjects. I have been reminded several times recently about how our story of the civil rights movement is framed as Brown v Board, Emmitt Till, Rosa Parks, Birmingham, March on Washington, 1964 Civil Rights Bill, assignation of MLK Jr and the 1968 civil rights bills as if they were all self contained.

Thurgood Marshall graduated from law school in 1933 in just a few years he was working for NAACP and then also joined the board of directors of the ACLU in 1939. It is Brown v Board that he is most well known for, but as Showdown explains, there was a significant number of cases that Marshall and others argued that laid the groundwork for Brown. The work to end white-only primary systems across the country took 20 years and three Supreme Court decisions. Each one widen the crack just a bit more. The ending of the white only primary system and then the various one person, one vote decisions that ended Georgia's county unit system and requiring both regular redistricting and relatively equal size districts as well as the 1965 Voting Rights acts were decades in the making and none of those brought about a perfect democracy, but each slowly changed political realities.

Showdown is quite meandering, but that is part of the point because the context of Marshall's appointment to the Supreme Court has wide context. Marshall was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 1961, but that took 8 months from nomination until approval. In 1965 he was nominated and quickly approved as the US Solicitor General. But it was the nearly 4 months to approve Marshall to the Supreme Court that is the main focus of the book.

As Solicitar General Marshall argued to end the poll tax, Miranda, and several cases defending the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as other cases. It was more these cases than his earlier civil rights work that he was questioned about in his nomination. Marshall was not directly involved with the Loving case, but the decision was handed down during the nomination process. Marshall himself married a Filipino woman in 1955, Cecilia Suyat Marshall, after the death of his first wife. Being questioned about the constitutionality of interracial marriage, while being in an interracial marriage with his wife sitting right behind him was a detail that really does matter to the context of that nomination process. As much as I read civil rights history and know that we have not moved as far could be hoped, I also know that there have been changes.

This is not an essential book, but it is one that filled in a few areas that I had not previously learned about. Overall, I am not sure that the thesis quite holds up, but I do think that there is at least a point here that the problems with the current nomination process did not start with Bork or Thomas or the cases like Roe v Wade or Bob Jones, but there is a wide influence from many streams.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/showdown/

Summary: An alternate history of the midwest in the 1920s.

This is the third novel of Francis Spufford that I have read. They have all been historical fiction of one sort or another. Golden Hill was set in 1746 New York City and has a plot twist at the very end that really made the book. It was written and tightly plotted, but that main twist and some other minor plots twists moved the book from good to excellent. Light Perpetual is also an alternative history that follows a group of children who were killed by a German rocket in WWII as if they had not died. My only real complaint about the book is that the book could have been written as a straight novel without the alternate history. I bring that up because Cahokia Jazz does not have that problem.

Cahokia Jazz is set in the 1920s. The alternative history is not really explained well, but as I explored other reviews, I discovered that the central change is that a less virulent form of small pox was introduced by early Spanish explorers and that instead of approximately 90% of Native Americans at the time dying from European diseases, a much smaller percentage died. The result is that by the 1920s, instead of a minuscule Native American population, there is really three cultural groupings in this midwestern city that is roughly the same area as St Louis. The book opens with a note telling the reader that there are three racial/ethnic groups in the book and the book uses the local terms to describe them. They are, takouma (Native Americans), takata (European Americans), and taklousa (African Americans). I knew in my head the terms and I knew by the story which group was which in terms of cultural power and significance, but I think his renaming these racial/ethnic terms was a savvy way to disguise some of the plot points.

As with other Spufford books there is a top level story, but there is depth that below that. Cahokia Jazz is a classic noir detective novel. The gritty cop finds a body and has to do the hard things to solve the crime. That gritty cop doesn't like following rules and has his own history that influences the case. Joe Barrow is a gifted jazz pianist, but has become a murder detective. His partner, Phineas Drummond, who he met in "the war" is a classic dirty cop who also has PTSD.

Much of the culture and history is familiar. This is the 1920s, prohibition has led to crime and gangs. Tommy guns still shape that violence. The US exists, but the development of it is different because of the precarious nature of a multilingual and multi cultural country. The racial reality matters here. White supremacy is still assumed, but the cultural history of the Native Americans, who are now mostly Catholic, but still are influence by the cultural history. Barrow was an orphaned mixed racial man. He is part takouma who was never taught a language other than English and doesn't know any of the stories and history of his Native American side, but has connected with the jazz and culture of his taklousa side. His partner, a takata, naturally assumes leadership because of the assumptions of white supremacy.

The city has an uncomfortable equilibrium. It is primarily a takouma city with a traditional leadership structure, but while he would be a type of king, the official authority structures have changed and modern economics are attempting to take over the traditional communal systems. Race, economics, power, traditional all come together to tell a story that is both familiar, but different enough to make sense as an alternate history.

I think this is a book that is less focused on the plot twists and more focused on the front end alternate history to be the twist. As much as I can see the through line of Spufford's writing, his ability to write books that feel completely different from one another is something that I don't see from most other writers. Most other writers stick to a genre and become known for that genre. If anything I think Spufford may be known for not sticking to a genre and writing books that feel completely different from all the other books he has previously written. But all of these books are beautifully written with compelling characters.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/cahokia-jazz/

Summary: Despite its age, this is still one of the best biographies of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bethge was one of Bonhoeffer's students at Finkenwalde, and became his closest friend and he was the one responsible for compiling Letters and Papers from Prison, the book that made Bonhoeffer a widely known theologian.

It took me almost two months to finish, but Eberhard Bethge's biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, despite being over 50 years old, is still well worth reading. I read the first edition, published in English in 1970 because that was the edition my library had. But I would recommend picking up the 2000 edition from Fortress Press because the first edition was slightly abridged at only 867 pages, compared to 1068 pages in the revised edition.

If you are new to Bonhoeffer, I think Charles Marsh's biography is the best introduction, but Bethge's is the most complete. That makes sense because it is the longest by quite a bit. Marsh's biography is 528 pages, Metaxes biography (which I do not recommend) is 640 pages, Schlingensiepen's biography is 470. It isn't just that this biography is longer, although that is part of it, but this biography is just more comprehensive of areas that the others just do not get to.

Bethge was friend and student of Bonhoeffer's. He was conscripted into the German army for a time, and later was also imprisoned because of his connection to the Bonhoeffer family. (He married Bonhoeffer's niece and her father was part of the resistance movement that Bonhoeffer was also connected to.) I think that Marsh handle's Bonhoeffer's childhood and early development better than Bethge, but especially from 1932 on, Bethge is much more detailed, and much more focused on the way that German church's response to Hitler influenced Bonhoeffer's life. Other biographies hit the major developments and life events, but Bethge talks about ways church politics and especially the politics of the global ecumenical movement worked in a level of detail and nuance that was helpful to me to understand the particulars. But I also think that level of detail is probably too much for those who are new to Bonhoeffer.

My rough evaluation of a biography is that if a biography makes me want to read more by or about a figure, then it is doing its job. After finishing Bethge's biography, I am going to read a biography of Bethge and a biography of Bishop Bell that I have. I also want to read the complete Letters and Papers from Prison. I have read portions, but not all. And the edition that I have is 614 pages compared to the earlier editions that were around 400 pages. There is the Bonhoeffer's Works edition that is 776 pages as well.

Part of what inspired me to pick up Bethge's biography now is reading Mark Nation's book on the legacy of Bonhoeffer. Nation believes that Bethge got some aspect of Bonhoeffer wrong, especially the way that Bethge frames the theological changes over time and his perspectives on pacifism. Having read Bethge after Nation, I think Nation has a point. Bethge was writing about Bonhoeffer at a time when even though there was a condemnation of Hitler and Nazism, there was still come resistance to seeing the resistance movement as an appropriate response. Nation suggests that Bonhoeffer continued to be a pacifist and wasn't involved in the actual plots to kill Hitler, only the efforts to communicate to the outside world that there was a movement to remove Hitler. I think Nation has a point, but I am not sure that the evidence is strong enough to make that point too strongly. I think Bethge does show that the initial resistance movement was attempting to stage a coupe and arrest Hitler for various human rights violations and war crimes. But once the senior military leaders who were involve in the resistance movement were removed from their positions, that option was lost. A coupe was no longer possible and assassination was the only option. I have not read Bonhoeffer the Assassin? which directly addresses this point and it is edited by Mark Nation, but it is an earlier book to Discipleship in a World Full of Nazi's so I am not sure that there will be more evidence there.

I do think that Nation is right that the main reason Bonhoeffer was arrested was because of his use of his role in the Abwehr as a means of avoiding conscription. Being a pacifist and/or refusing to fight was punished by death. As a secondary offense, Bonhoeffer helped to get some Jewish people out of Germany, which was really the excuse used by take down Admiral Canaris, the head of Abwehr as a separate military intelligence agency and to subsume it into the SS intelligence agency. Bonhoeffer was a minor figure in that, but after the discovery of several diaries that recorded – in great detail, and in Admiral Canaris’ handwriting – the activities of the anti-Nazi movement since the 1930s, Canaris, Bonhoeffer, several other members of Bonhoeffer's family and many others were executed just before the end of the war. Bethge and Nation have the same basic facts but they understand some of those facts differently. That is in part why reading multiple biographies matters because there are often different ways to evaluate what is known, especially in cases like Bonhoeffer where there is controversy.

One of the biggest weaknesses of Metaxes's biography was his lack of understanding of Germany's political and church politics. Bethge was not an outsider. He was intimately involved and has that level of detail and understanding matters to understanding the context of why Bonhoeffer continues to be an interesting and important figure today. Books like Haynes' Battle for Bonhoeffer are helpful to look at how Bonhoeffer has been misused, but reading the original biographies not just the evaluation of those biographies, is really helpful.

I also agree with Reggie William's contention in Bonhoeffer's Black Jesus, that Bethge and most other biographers do not adequately address how Bonhoeffer's theology and ecclesiology were influenced by his time in Harlem. So even at over 1000 pages, there are areas where I think this biography could be expanded. I have been listening to Homebrewed Christinaity's Rise of Bonhoeffer podcast documentary and one of the interviews mentioned that there was interest in another revision of Bethge's biography to add in details that have been discovered in the years since Bethge's death. That project did not happen, but there are holes here.

The revised version of Bethge's biography is only available in paperback. And it is expensive, $80 from the publisher and over $50 from most booksellers. There is no ebook or audiobook versions. And even at that high price, multiple book sellers I looked at did not have it available to order.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/dietrich-bonhoeffer/

Summary: A stand alone sci-fi novel set in the same universe as the Ancillary series, multiple people come together by change to grapple with belonging.

As I have said many times, I like sci-fi because it is “about something.” The ideas don’t have to hit you over the head, it is often better if they don’t, but sci-fi is particularly helpful at looking at the ways that culture and perspective shape our world.

Translation State is set in the same world as the Ancillary series, but it is completely stand alone. You don’t have to have read the other books, but you will have insight into the cultures of the different groups and the politics of the universe if you have read the earlier series.

This is a book that can be thought to be about several things simultaneously in a way that makes it not clearly about any one thing in particular. One language does not have gender, so our conception of gender is not present in that language. Other alien species have different ways of procreation which has implications for how their society is set up. There are also different perspectives on what it means to be an individual. In the case of AI machines that have ancillaries, there is not “an individual” but a part of a whole.

I don't want to give away plot point more than necessary because this is one of those books where the reader isn't supposed to understand what is going on until midway through the book then the different threads start to come together. There are a mix of human and non-human characters who for one reason or another do not fit in with expectations. It is pretty easy to read rugged individualism into this framing, and that isn't entire wrong, but there is also a reading about sexual or other minorities who are pressed into behavior as if they were part of the majority group. In the end, it is the difference that saves the day, as I not surprising.

While that is a surface level reading of the book, I do think there is more depth there if you are interested in mining for it. Aliens really are alien and it is difficult to understand across biology, language and culture. But difficult does not mean impossible.

There is also an exploration of trauma as a result of differences in expectations and experience. It is alien, but there is a rough rape equivalent where the individual is resistant to future relationship and change because of the trauma of their past. There is also some violence, especially among aliens who have different biological realities, which leads to different expectations.

This is universe is not perfect, but I have appreciate the four books set within it and I would read more if there are more written in the future.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/translation-state/

Summary: Picking up right where Sensible Shoes left off, the four friends continue to find their way in the world and to find God more clearly.

Sensible Shoes is one of those series that is really one long story broken up into different books because no one would buy a 1500 or so odd page book. The second book starts right after the first book. There is a clear conclusion, but it also was clear that the story would keep moving at the end of the first book.

As I said in my post on Sensible Shoes, one of the problems of writing about spiritual formation is that it is incredibly slow and the problem of writing about it is that it either seems magically fast or boringly slow. Part of what Brown is doing here is to make sure that the reader understands that this is not a one way path toward growth.

But I do think that one of the other problems here is that spiritual growth is inherently dependent upon discernment because discernment is part of how we understand the work of the spirit in our lives. And in my estimation, discernment can bring us to different conclusion because we are different people. And I think at least some of the discernment that happens in these books is discernment I would question. It may be that one particular case of discernment that I question was a red herring where the characters didn't act as well as she should have in the situation but over time did come to a place of forgiveness toward another character.

Forgiveness is a major theme of the series. The characters need to forgive others, especially parents. But also over time, the tends to be a level of acceptance that parents, while they may not have been great parents, they were doing the best that they could at the time, or at least they were not trying to actively harm, even if there was harm. A recent Gravity Commons podcast interviewed author Adam Young about his recent book and he talked about the fact that parenting inevitably leads to trauma. Even good parents will harm their kids in some ways because that is part of the fallenness of the world. And that is how this series treats parents.

The characters are also not perfect. There are times when they are selfish or unthinking, or self protective in unhelpful ways that leads to lies or a lack of full truth. I am still in process of the series but I do not think the characters are going to become perfect along the way.

I don't love the cover art and some of the writing tropes or methods that feel a little too stereotypical. There are some theological quibbles that I have, and big problems, like the problem of evil, are never going to be solvable, but it still makes sense to grapple with those big problems. But I am engaged. As I am writing this, I stayed up WAY too late last night finishing up the third book in the series.

I originally posted this on my blog at https://bookwi.se/two-steps-forward/

Summary: An exploration of the Catholic Church and its history and future around racial justice.

Some books on Catholic thought are about the universal (catholic) church but written from the perspective of a Catholic thinking. While other books on Catholic thought are particularly about what it means to be Catholic in particular. This is the latter not the former. As a non-Catholic reading it, there are still helpful ideas and considerations that can be used outside of the Catholic Church. The chapter on culture is particularly helpful in part because the Catholic Church is so universal that it (or at least parts of it) have thought deeply about how culture and faith work together.

Other parts of the book, history and the discussion of what it means to be a Black Catholic theologian in the US, are more particular and those parts are not as immediately applicable for those who are not Catholic (or Black). But there is still value in understanding particularity. Particularity, when you can understand it allow you to see how to think and act, or at least how others have attempted to think and act, and then to see if those process of thinking and acting can be helpful for you in a different context.

This is also a book written at a particular time, 2010. That time was very particular. Obama had been elected president. And the very public deaths of Black people (mostly men) that eventually gave rise to the Black Lives Matter movement had not started. Massingale was writing with tempered hope. He was well aware that the idealism of many who thought we were in a "post-racial" world was not true. But he also was aware that there had been improvements within his lifetime both inside and outside the Catholic Church. Fifteen years later, and not only Benedict, and Francis, have passed away, but the American Catholic Church is in an even deeper sense of division as a result of the continued fall out of the abuse crisis, the politics of Trump, the strain theologically between reformers and traditionalists and other issues. However, I am not sure that much of the discussion in the book is really significantly different.

I am very much influenced by the work of the Catholic Church. My spiritual direction training was at a Catholic program. I am very much influenced by Catholic social teaching. But I also am aware that as much as I find value and ideas helpful, that I am not Catholic. My particularity as a Christian does not have to be disturbed by grappling with difference. Instead the difference can help me understand myself and my own context more clearly.

I originally posted this on my blog at https://bookwi.se/racial-justice/

Summary: A retelling of Huck Finn from Jim's viewpoint.

While I have read some of Mark Twain's books, I have never read Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer. Almost all of my background for the story of Huck Finn is from the 1968-69 live action and animation series, "The New Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." The show used three live action characters who played Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer and Becky Thatcher, but was otherwise entirely animated. You can see an example here. My memory is pretty vague, but I remember it being almost entirely fantasy. The children found magical creatures as they took a raft down the Mississippi. That was poor preparation for reading James, a retelling of Huck Finn through the perspective of Jim.

My perception prior to reading was that Jim was a slave about the same age as Huck Finn, but once I was a little way into the book I check and the original book had Jim/James in his late 20s. The story keeps to the outline of Huck Finn. Jim runs away to keep from being sold away from his wife and daughter. While at the same time and unrelated, Huck Finn fakes his death to get away from his abusive and alcoholic father.

Jim and Huck Finn find one another while they are both hiding out on an island in the Mississippi River. Jim realizes that he will be blamed for Huck's death, and at the same time knows that Huck is too young to care for himself and so takes Huck under his care as they try to get away. The book starts out in Hannibal, IL. I had previously assumed Hannibal, MO was further south, but it is 100 miles due west of Springfield IL. Missouri was a slave state and while it would have taken longer to get to than today, Springfield was where Abraham Lincoln was based prior to his election as president. The vague initial plan was to take the Mississippi River south to the Ohio River (about 200 miles) and escape to freedom.

Huck Finn was written as a satire but also a children's book. It seems it was mostly told as a series of adventures and Percival Everett in writing this retelling has to fit this new story within the constraints of the old. Huck and Jim spend a lot of time apart in the original which allows for a variety of new elements.

I did spend a little time reading through Huck Finn summaries to make sure I wasn't missing anything too important, but I do not think that you need to read Huck Finn First. The ending of James seems to deviate from Huck Finn pretty significantly.

Huck Finn was at least partially satire, but the overt racism that was part of the satire means that I many people no longer read Huck Finn. And it is why I haven't read it. I am not sure I would have read James if so many people I know had not recommended it. Telling the story from the perspective of a slave, who was continually afraid for himself and his family and who had experienced the beatings and abuse of slavery makes this very different in tone from what I think Twain was doing.

But there is still humor. When alone, the enslaved characters talk without dialect and reveal how much they keep themselves hidden from white people. Jim can read and write and his attempt to get the materials to write his story is a significant part of the plot development. There is a tension between remaining enslaved and alive and the risk of seeking freedom while risking death. That tension also carries throughout the book and shifts over time. Jim's hand is forced. He wouldn't run away if he had not found out that he was supposed to be sold down the river to New Orleans. And he wouldn't have run as he did, if he hadn't known that he would be lynched for killing Huck. And throughout the story, one event after another continue to force Jim's hand to take greater and greater risks because he knows he really has no choice.

I understand why James has become such a popular book. There are aspects that I didn't love, but I think many of them are about the constraints of the retelling method. I generally really like books that are retold from a different perspective. James was well written and realistic. At the same time, part of why this has mattered is the contemporary culture it is being written to.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/james-a-novel-by-percival-everett/

Summary: A novel about the English mystic Margery Kempe, the author of what is usually considered the first autobiography written in English.

I have been intentionally trying to read fiction every day and this has led to me reading a lot more fiction this year. Revelations is about Margery Kempe (c1373-1438?). This is a novel based on her life, roughly from her autobiography, The Book of Margery Kempe.

In that autobiography she details her many visions of Jesus or other members of the trinity as she went on various pilgrimages, including to the Holy Land. But that autobiography also details her many pregnancies and children and the abuse (and rape) from her husband. She suffered what we would now label postpartum depression and has the first of her visions of Jesus after the birth of her first child. And it is believed that she has 14-15 pregnancies with multiple children dying in infancy or still births.

She negotiated a "chaste marriage" and soon after left her husband (and children) when she was about 43. She meets Julian of Norwich and has extended conversations with her. Julian was also a mystic and author and the novel expands on that connection.

Obviously, while there is source material, much of the book is fictionalized. Unintentionally, this is another book on the Love of God that is a connection between Greg Boyle's Cherished Belonging and the novel Sensible Shoes and John Armstrong's The Transforming Fire of Divine Love: My Long, Slow Journey into the Love of God (which I am still reading.) This unintentional theme of God's love throughout my reading this spring has made me think more about how the mystical experience of God's love matters to the church and to those who never have a mystical experience of God's love.

There are, of course, people who disbelieve in or oppose mystical experiences. (One of the reviews of Sensible Shoes that I read opposed spiritual disciples which used imagination or contemplative prayer because that could lead to mystical experiences.) But I think in the history of Christianity, there is a level of mysticism that is assumed even if it is clear that not everyone has a mystical experience. I do not have an explanation for why some have mystical experiences and others do not. From my reading it is clear that some who have mystical experiences would prefer not to have them and that many who do not have mystical experiences desire them.

Margery is known both for her mystical visions and for her public displays of tears. She would regularly cry in public either while having a mystical experience or in remembering those experiences. Margery was not a nun or in a convent. She, as an individual, traveled on pilgrimages but also spoke regularly about the love of God to others. That was considered preaching, which was illegal for a woman to do, and she was tried for heresy multiple times, but never found guilty of being a heretic.

Historical fiction, even if fiction, is a helpful way to learn about the saints. In addition to Revelations, Mary Sharratt also wrote Illuminations, a novel about Hildegard von Bingen, which I read last year. I am often disappointed or frustrated with non-fiction writing about the mystics. And while, there are also limitations to fictional writing about the mystics, it fills a gap in a way that is hard to do with non-fiction writing. I still think my favorite novel about a mystic is Laurus by Eugene Vodolazkin.

This was originally published on my blog at https://bookwi.se/revelations/

Summary: Exploration of the role of love, community and belonging.

I have known of Greg Boyle for a while, but I have not previously read his books. I thought I had a good idea of his perspective and approach and I just didn't think I needed to read him. But Cherished Belonging was the book chosen for the book club that I love and so I picked the book up and read it. I think I had a pretty good understanding of Boyle and that my impressions were largely correct. But I was challenged by the book.

Boyle starts early in the book telling the reader that there are two principles that frame his ministry and approach. "1) Everyone is unshakably good (no exceptions) and 2) We belong to each other (no exceptions)." (p2) While there is a bit of fluidity to how he uses "good" in the first part, mostly what he means is inherent worth and value, not moral goodness. I think if you understand him to mean, everyone is made in the image of God and therefore has value, that will be the rough meaning in most situations throughout the book. The stories he shares make it clear that he does not mean that everyone makes good choices or that they always will do the right thing at important points.

With that caveat about how he seems to mean good, I do think that the book is helpful especially in a time when basic Christian values are being questioned. Boyle is remaindering the reader that not only are we called to love, but we are call to love all, even those who are not particularly lovable. He reminds us that those who are most hard to love, generally have been the victims of abuse and harm. Those who have abused and harmed, will often harm others. And as he repeatedly illustrates in his stories, our systems of "justice" often perpetuate more harm instead of healing to those who are at the bottom rungs of our society.

"What if we didn’t punish the wounded but, rather, sought to heal them? In American society, we are faced with broken people, and we have chosen to build prisons to accommodate them. What if we did the reverse? We want to commit to creating a culture and community of cherished belonging. I’m not suggesting that Homeboy is the answer, but we might have stumbled upon the question. As Daniel Berrigan says, “Know where to stand and stand there.” Homeboy just wants to keep standing there." (p5)

Boyle believes (rightly I think) that the way that we best heal those who have been harmed through traumatic abuse, neglect, and other social harms by radical belonging and love. That does not mean that we ignore bad behavior, but that we show that our love is rooted in their value as a creation of God, not in their good behavior, and that we seek to find places that people can be in deep congratulated.

Generally, I agree with most of the book, but stylistically, Boyle is not my kind of writer. I know many people in the group I was in were deeply moved by his stories and method. But I felt a lot of his storytelling was too superficial and quick. He regularly shared three brief stories per page. He frequently drew meaning from stories that I think were strained.

But again, I was convicted regularly throughout the book. I do not love as much as I should. I do judge harshly at times I should not.

When the group first started reading the book was the start of President Trump's time in office. I am a Wheaton College alumni and Wheaton congratulated Russ Vought for his role as OMB Director. That led to significant controversy because many Wheaton alum are international aid workers or in other areas of social ministry. Vought was the primary architect of Project 2025, much of which is designed to remove international aid, social safety-net systems, public education and protections for women, minorities and the disabled. Another very large group of Wheaton alum are politically conservative and supporters of Trump and Vought's policies. As that controversy played out, I was convicted that I needed to be regularly praying for Vought. I didn't know him when I was at Wheaton, but we overlapped I believe. He was several years younger than I am. We just do not have the same theological convictions. Vought is a vocal Christian nationalist who does not believe that the constitution is valid any longer and who does not believe in the separation of church and state. He believes that Christians should have sole authority of control government and he has indicated that he does not think women should have the right to vote. He has celebrates looking forward to a time when federal workers would be too traumatized to come to work.

But I was convicted that I need to pray for him daily. I am not praying for him to succeed in his plans, I find his plans reprehensible and far from Christianity as I understand it. I am praying that he will accept God's love for him and find a community that loves him.

But as much as I was convicted by the book, I think part of the problem of the book is that is often is framed as loving others as a type of ministry and when connected with race and class this can become a type of paternalism. I don't think that Boyle is paternalistic, but I do think that the book doesn't spend enough time helping the reader to take the principles that are in use by Boyle in his context and move that to other contexts.

It is clear from the stories that Boyle isn't perfect, he does get frustrated with people he works with, he has limits, but I do think there can be a perception of super spiritualness in the book. He doesn't talk about his habits of rest or renewal or what he does to remind himself of his calling. That is a different book, but I do think it is part of what it takes to move toward the type of "cherished belonging" that he is calling the reader to. (The group I was discussing this with talked about this and several were getting together to write him about those practices to better understand his own spiritual work.)

I think this can be a valuable book to understand how belonging and love practically do work to bring about healing. I do think that this is helpful is teaching that we are not just called to love those who are easy to love, but also to love those who are hard to love. Boyle writes from his experience and setting. That experience is not a common experience and that setting is one that can by mythologized like other "missionary" books. Most people who read this are going to try to put it into practice is a standard suburban setting and they will likely need help in translation.

One minor note, Boyle uses a lot of Spanish that he leaves untranslated. Most of the time you get the basic meaning from context. But one advantage to reading on a kindle is that you can translate it in the kindle as long as you have an internet connection. I used that feature a lot in this book.

This was originall posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/cherished-belonging/

Summary: Urban fantasy about what the role of guilt and repair is for those who have been raised to harm.

When Among Crows is the first of Veronica Roth's books that I have read since the Divergent series. I read the Divergent series soon after they were released in the 2011-13 era. I think I read all of the series at least twice and I saw the movies. But since then, while Roth has written a number of additional books, I just haven't bothers to pick them up.

I saw When Among Crows was on sale for kindle and I picked it up because it was short and because it was a modern urban fantasy based in Chicago (similar to Desden Files) and it was loosely based on Slavic folktales. I also picked up The Witch and the Tsar at the same time and it will be my next fiction book. Both books use the folktale character of Baba Yaga and I picked them up together to see how different authors handle the retelling of similar stories.

Similar to other urban fantasy, there are more creatures than just humans living in our world, but not everyone can see them. Dymitr opens the books. He is human and on a quest, but the object of that quest is not fully revealed until very close to the end of the book. Along the way, Dymitr seeks out help from various creatures that feed on human fear or pain or sadness.

This is not a young adult book like Percy Jackson or The Carver and the Queen Emma C. Fox or KB Hoyle's fairytale series, this is more like Dresden Files' level of violence and dark fantasy themes, but with less humor than Dresden Files. There isn't any sex, but there are a few kisses between a gay couple and that doesn't go any further.

This is a bit between a long novella and a short novel at 175 pages. I read it in three brief reading sessions. I was facinated by the main theme of the book, revenge, guilt and atonement. It takes a while to get into who is guilty for what, but all the characters have killed or harmed others. Some have killed or harmed out of self defense. Some have killed or harmed because they were taught to fear others or that others were trying to harm them and so you needed to kill or be killed.

It isn't fully revealed until later and it would be a spoiler to discuss, but relationship across boundries is the cause of coming to see a different perspective. And once you see a different perspective, your guilt and the role you have in repair of harm does matter.

Urban fantasy does not tend to take a light view of magic. Magic can be well used or badly used, but regardless, there is always a cost. This book continues that general genre trend.

I lived in Chicago for years. This book uses the polish immigrant story to explore how old world fairytale creatures came to the new world. But the city was not as much of a character to the book as I would have hoped. The next book in the series comes out later this year and by advance page count (which can be wrong) the next book is closer to 300 pages, or nearly twice as long. I look forward to picking it up when it is released.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/when-among-crows/

Summary: Percy Jackson and gang's latest project is pet sitting.

Wrath of the Tripple Goddess is the second of a subtrilogy within the larger Percy Jackson series. This subtrilogy is set during Percy Jackson's senior year of high school and the background is that he has to get three letters of recommendation from gods to get into the demigod college, New Rome University, where Percy and Annabeth want to go to college. Percy Jackson was able to get his first letter of recommendation, and this is about getting his second. Because gods only give boons as a result of some quest or challege done for them by a human or demigod, Percy, Annabeth and Grover have to accomplish something for a god. In the last book, they found a stolen challice. In the Wrath of the Triple Goddess, they have to pet sit for some magical creatures at the home of one of the gods.

Thematically, this is a halloween book, so it is a bit spookier than some, although it isn't very spooky. Generally, I think this subtrilogy has walked a good balance of writing about Percy when he is 5-6 years older than the intiial series, but keeping it oriented toward younger readers so that its content is not too old, but it engages readers who are now older than they were when the initial series came out.

There is good character development here. I am happy to learn more about Grover and Annabeth and Percy and there are characters from earlier books that come up along the way that show that there are ramifications for previous actions.

I have been intentionally reading more fiction and as much as I have enjoyed reading some young adult fiction, I am ready to read something with more depth. If the third book in the subtrilogy were already out I would probably gone straight to it, but it will not come out until fall 2025.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wrath-of-the-triple...

Summary: A series of loosely connected essays about the influence of the rule of Benedict and Benedictine spirituality on the church.

I have read a number of Rowan Williams' short books. Most of those books were based on lectures and compiled into books later. This seems to be different in that it appears to be a series of essays that was compiled into a book and just doesn't have the same level of coherence as I tend to expect from Williams' books. That isn't to say they are bad essays, I learned a lot about the history and influence of the Benedictine order. But I think as long as you go into the book with an expectation of essays that are loosely connected and not as a more intentionally shaped book, you will be rightly primed for what the book is.

One of the reviews I skimmed through complained about the last essay, which is less about Benedictines broadly and more about a particular Benedictine author's book. I agree with the comment, but I also found that essay the most engaging of the book because it was about a book trying to grapple with mysticism in the early 20th century (about the same time that Evelyn Underhill was writing her book on mysticism.) Williams was helpful in pointing out that we tend to think of mysticism phenomenologically or sometimes epistemologically, but that isn't how all people at all times have thought about mysticism. Those are both useful ways to explore mysticism, but they do limit the concept of mysticism if those are the only methods of exploration.

The Rule of St Benedict is probably the thing most people are aware of, even if they haven't actually read it. There is a good discussion of the rule, but you probably do want to have a little familiarity with the rule before you start. I have read it all, but it has been a while ago and I probably should have stopped and read it all again before reading the book.

Most of the first section reflects on the rule and the ways that the rule shaped Benedictines to stability and obedience and virtue. These sections are all helpful but because I am not brand new to Benedictine spirituality, that was less new than the last two chapters. I have already mentioned the last chapter on mysticism as my favorite chapter. But the chapter of the history of reforms within Benedictine order was helpful because much of that was new to me. As someone that is always interested in reforming system, understanding the influence of both successful and failed reforms is helpful.

Overall, this wasn't my favorite book of Williams, and I am glad I picked it up while it was on sale. But there was value for me reading it even if I think it will be too narrow for many readers.

I posted this originally on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-way-of-st-benedict/

Summary: A book that is hard to recommend, because it needs a lot of caveating. The right person will find it helpful, most will not.

I have a ambivalent attitude toward reading the mystics. I value mystical thinking and practice, but I tend to find reading them an exercise in frustration. Mystics are often vague and contradictory. They often use language in unusual ways. But there is often still real help there.

Part of my ongoing reading about discernment is about how we apply what we learn even when there is not definitive directions. I was listening to a talk by Sean Rowe, the new presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and he said (my paraphrase) that we like to talk about discernment, and discernment is good, but the point of discernment is to eventually chose a path and follow it. That is a helpful point and one that I think DeMello needs to hear (or say).

What DeMello is doing here is not saying, "give up and stay where you are," but "acknowledge where you are and pay attention." His rough summary is that we don't change by trying to force ourselves to do hard things, but by paying attention and allowing the Holy Spirit to bring awareness to us.

A lot of the emphasis early in the book is not on changing to "get something" but to become content in all things. Again, this is both true and problematic. It is true to the extent that we should be content in all things, but not true to the extent that we simply accept injustice without complaint. I feel like this is similar to Dallas Willard's advice/comment that a mature person should be very hard to offend. And to the extent that you should not personally be offended, I agree. But to the extend that we are not offended about the things that offend God, I disagree.

The shift to part two raises a lot of concerns. In part one, his language is about beliving in yourself. He doesn't use the language of manifesting, but I think he is using some of the ideas that overlap with manifesting. I get concerned about that type of rhetoric because while there is some truth to needing to believe in yourself and be confident that something is possible, there are limits. Simply beliving that good things will happen will not make them true. But the rhetoric at the start of section two is even more problematic.

"What causes unhappiness...there is only one cause of unhappiness. The false beliefs in your head." I understand in context what he is trying to say. He isn’t explicitly denying that wrong things in the world exist. But he is framing unhappiness as how we respond. Stephen Covey’s point about our response is the space between the stimuli and our action is similar to what DeMello is trying to say. There is a need to help people see that the space between stimuli and response exists, but I don't think it is helpful to put everything on that space.

In particular now with the current administration's explicit plan to overwhelm the news media and the bureaucracy with a barrage of orders and news so that it is impossible to have an adequate response, we do need to emphasize that space between stimuli and action. But it feels like he is playing games with semantics, not unlike the “Sin of Empathy” discussion. Empathy has a common definition. But the “Sin of Empathy” crowd is redefining empathy to be sinful by defining it as a type of codependent enmeshment or abusive manipulation. It is entirely possible to have a discussion about codependent enmeshment or abusive manipulation without denigrating the virtue of empathy.

In that similar way, DeMello seems to be redefining Happiness not as an emotion or a type of joy or pleasure at the world, but solely as a divine gift of contentment. There is a God given gift of contentment that the mystics have told us about for a long time, but that isn’t usually described as “happiness” and to define it that way using that word seems to intentionally create confusion.

Much of the rest of the book has similar problems of either using words oddly, or asking us to withdraw from our emotional response to adopt a type of Buddhist-like detachment. I understand that some people may find that helpful. But I think many Chrsitians have already been taught to mistrust emotions and those Christians who already mistrust emotions do not need additional instruction about the problems of emotion. Emotion is part of how we were created. Emotions can be distorted because of sin and experience. But the solution to that is healing, not continued distrust of emotion.

I originally posted this on my blog at

Summary: A black history textbook wrapped up in a comedic wrapper.

I am all about a good Black history book. And I also really appriciate history told by comedians because they are trying to get around the way that many people are resistant to dry dates and events presentations of history.

Black AF History is not a dry presentation. The humor mostly works to get to the heart of the presentation. I think some of the voice of his uncle sections fall a bit flat. But the vast majority works well.

I think on of the by products of the presenation is that this is not a universal Black presentation, but a particular black presentation. That should be obvious becuase there is no universal Black experience that is true of all Black peole at all times. Harriot grew up with a rural southern Black cultural experience. That experience will be differnet from an northern urban Black experience and different from a midwestern farmbelt experience and different from California suburban experience. And all of these are still stereotypical in some way which makes them also incomplete.

It is a very rare history book that doesn't give me new information or nuance that I have not heard before. There is just too much history for anyone to know it all and no book can present it all. I think this is a very good presentation, but part of the benefit of the comedy is that he can pull out little known aspects of history and focus on them, because he isn't trying to do a complete survey, but point out how the history is not known well enough.

One of those figures that was new to me here is Mary Ellen Pleasant, arguably the first Black woman to be a milionaire. And adjusted for inflation, she may be considered the first Black billionaire. But she was also an abolitionist and is reportedly the funder of John Brown's Harper's Ferry raid. If the evidence is accurate she donated more than a million dollars in today value toward the raid. She underwrote court cases around desegregation and was an active abolitionist before the civil war. But she is a figure that I didn't know existed prior to this book.

I originally posted this on my blog at https://bookwi.se/black-af-history/

Summary: Short look at both the history of WEB Dubois 1900 World Fair project and how it predated much of the graphical data representation that became common later in the 20th century.

This is not a long book. There are really only a handful of essays. Those essays give context to the 1900 Paris World Exposition, WEB DuBois and his experience up until this point, and the data that was being presented. A final section discusses how innovative the presentation of the data was and how it predated later similar graphical data presentations.

I have known about this book since it came out but just hadn’t gotten around to reading it. I have an undergrad degree in sociology and part of an early job was using GIS demographics to help churches and church plants with planning. So I have a fair amount of background to know how important this event was in regard to data presentation.

But this matters in part because of what WEB DuBois and the others who participated were trying to do. 1900 was 35 years after the end of slavery. Contextually, 35 yeas ago was 1990, and the first Iraq War hadn’t happened yet. George HW Bush was president and the http protocol was being developed but the first real web browser would not be released widely until 1994. In other words, slavery was recent. It wasn’t just that slavery was recent but that there was widespread perception that Black Americans (and all from African decent) were “less than” those from European decent. The presentation, and WEB DuBois himself, were proof of the falsity of that belief.

This is a fairly niche book, but in a time where there less celebration of minority accomplishments, this is just another datapoint that needs to be widely known. If you want to see some of the graphics from the presentation, the Museum of African American History and Culture has a good webpage about it.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/visualizing-black-a...

Summary: An orphan who aged out of foster care breaks his (chosen, not biological) brother out of an abusive foster care family, and that starts his discovery of his magical roots, a family he didn't know he had, and a magical HBCU.

I have been trying to intentionally read more fiction this year. That has mostly been young adult fiction because it is what has drawn me in so far.

Blood At the Root was published last year and I have seen it on the shelves of a few friends on Goodreads or seen social media posts about it. As I try to generally do, I avoided reading anything about it other than seeing that people I trusted recommended it.

Malik is 17 and petitioned to be released from the foster care system. His mother died when he was seven and people around him, blamed him for her death. He doesn't really understand what happened. But he knows it has to do with his magic. Since the day of her death, he has magic. But it is mostly uncontrolled and comes out when he is angry or emotional. So he tries to repress his emotions to stay in control. (He is not always in control.)

The book opens with Malik stealing a car so that he can break his (chosen, not biological) 12 year old foster brother out of an abusive foster home. They have grown up in a small predominately Black Alabama town and they dream of going to California to get away from everything. I won't give away too much more than spoilers from opening chapters, but in the midst of running away, they run into trouble and that leads them to find Malik's grandmother who he didn't know he had. She and all those around her also have magic and Malik finds an underground world of magic and Black community which he is not sure he can trust. He has been on his own for 10 years without anyone watching out for him. And it is hard to trust that there could be family that is trustworthy if they had not come for him earlier.

Part of what is revealed is that there is an HBCU which is designed to train students like him to use their magic. Almost immediately after finding his family, he is invited to go to a summer program to prepare him to enter the school in the fall. And that sets up the rest of the book.

Part of what I love about young adult novels is that they are explorations of what it means to grow up. Part of what I hate about young adult novels is the angst and mistrust of family and mentors that are trying to help those young adult grow up. The angst may be cliché, but it is based on a common reality. I very much remember going to a pretty angry phase. And Malik both has some reason for anger, but also quite a bit of developmental trauma. That is openly discussed in the novel and I think the normalization of the discussion of trauma in realistic terms is a good trend in young adult literature.

Blood at the Root is a very consciously culturally Black book. The magic system is rooted in Black culture and history. The HBCU makes complete sense with the magic system and history of the story. The geography of Alabama and Louisiana matters to the book's development. This is not Harry Potter with a culturally Black gloss. The book is pitched to a late teen audience. There is language and some violence and sexuality, but it is appropriate to a late teen audience that matches the age of the characters.

I was disappointed to learn that the sequel will not be released until late July 2025. But I will pre-order it and wait expectantly for it.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/blood-at-the-root-2/

Summary: An assessment of Bonhoeffer as a pacifist and how that pacifism remained unchanged throughout the 1940s, in opposition to how Bonhoeffer's story is often presented.

Discipleship in a World Full of Nazis is intentionally trying to reframe the story of Bonhoeffer. The common story is that Bonhoeffer after his time studying in NYC in 1930-31 came to see the Sermon on the Mount as the central teaching of Christianity. Bonhoeffer focused his teaching in the underground seminary on the Sermon on the Mount and that is reflected in his book Discipleship. But starting at some point in the late 1930s or early 1940s, there was a shift in Bonhoeffer and he came to see that his peace ethic was no longer a viable means of operating. This traditional version of Bonhoeffer shifts into a couple of variations, either Bonhoeffer kept his peace ethnic but violated his own teaching and particpated in the assassination attempt anyway, or he moved toward a type of Nebuhrian realism that justified his participation in the assassination attempt.

Mark Nation says that is all wrong. He directly challenges Bethge's presenation of Bonhoeffer as changing and instead suggests that Bonhoeffer remained fully and conscously a pacifist until the end. The book is essentially a collection of six main essays about different aspects of why Nation thinks this reframing best makes sense of the evidence that we have and then four appendix essays.

The first essay is summarized by this quote: "Bonhoeffer, let it be said over and over, was not arrested for participating in any assassination attempts. He was arrested for helping to save the lives of fourteen Jews and was imprisoned for subverting the military’s power to conscript him into service." Part of this discussion is about how Nation doesn't think there is much, if any, evidence that Bonhoeffer did anything other that communicate with the ecumentical church that there was a movement in Germany trying to remove Hitler from power.

The second essay is about the importance of the "Jewish question". It is nearly 40 pages and both points out how Bonheffer saw the the problem of overt antisemitism, but how Bonhoeffer was still supersessionist in his treatment of the question and how Bonhoeffer's method was primarily to talk about the ability of Jewish Christians to be part of the church. Nation suggests that this was at least in part a strategy to get the church to recognize that if Jewish people are unable to be recognized within the church then the very concept of evangelism and the universality of the church was at stake. Germany was only about 1% Jewish and of those about 1 in 6 ethnically Jewish people were Christians.

The third essay makes the argument that we should use the word pacifist to describe Bonhoeffer's beliefs. That isn't just controversial in regard to Metaxas' presentation of Bonhoeffer, but much of the consensus around Bonhoeffer, but I think that Nation shows in detail that Bonhoeffer not only used the word to describe himeself, but consistantly taught his students to be pacifists, even if most of them rejected the teaching. Part of the method here is that Nation is challenging the reader to ask if Bonhoeffer was a pacifist by the mid 1930s, then when did that change, if it did. Nation believes that he took the job with Abwehr to avoid conscription into the army, not with the express purpose of being a part of the resistance.

The fourth essay is about how Bonhoeffer understood the work of discipleship, but in his framing of his book named Discipleship but also that broader concept. I have an ongoing reading project on the concept of Christian Discernment and this essay and the next one, on Bonhoeffer's understanding of Ethics bounce around the idea of discernment. Nation quotes Bonhoeffer as saying, "Discipleship in essence never consists in a decision for this or that specific action; it is always a decision for or against Jesus Christ." That concept is essentially describing discipleship as a type of discernment process. The chapter on Ethics makes clear that Bonhoeffer rejected ethics as a set of principles, but rather viewed ethics as essentially following Christ.

"Moral weapons of the past simply will not do, says Bonhoeffer; “we must replace rusty weapons with bright steel” (81). The central—and defining—weapon in our arsenal is “the living, creating God” (81). In fact, if we are grounded “in the reality of the world reconciled with God in Jesus Christ, the command of Jesus gains meaning and reality” (82). Then we will realize: The world will be overcome not by destruction but by reconciliation. Not ideals or programs, not conscience, duty, responsibility or virtue, but only the consummate love of God can meet and overcome reality. Again, this is accomplished not by a general idea of love, but by the love of God really lived in Jesus Christ. This love of God for the world does not withdraw from reality into noble souls detached from the world, but experiences and suffers the reality of the world at its worst. The world exhausts its rage on the body of Jesus Christ. But the martyred one forgives the world its sins. Thus reconciliation takes place."

Part of what attracts people about Bonhoffer is his unwavering vision. Nation quotes Bonhoeffer as saying, "Things do exist that are worth standing up for without compromise. To me it seems that peace and social justice are such things, as is Christ himself.” Part of the method of ethics is standing with the vulnerable. There is a good discussion about how Bonhoeffer's understanding of four ideas, responsibility, vicarious representation, talking on guilt, and freedom, were worked out with regard to our "concrete neighbor."

These chapters again build on the earlier chapters that emphasize that Bonhoeffer was not attempting to gain power to overthrow Hitler, but to love people around him and care for justice in the face of a church that mostly ignored the injustice around them. The traditional story of the outline of his book that was compiled into Ethics is that Bonhoeffer was justifying his participation in the resistance. Nation believes this is a misreading and in fact what Bonhoeffer is doing is writing Ethics to help his former students, most of whom were drafted into the military to see how there could be resistance and how to view their Christian life in that context. Violation of the draft was an capital offense. And as Nation previously made the case, according to court records, Bonhoeffer's work in Abwehr was viewed as a violation of the draft and therefore the main reason why he was executed. The court records show that there was no connection to participation with any assassination attempts.

I think the key section of this chapter is this quote:

Bonhoeffer follows these extraordinary claims by offering ten pages of argument for why the Sermon on the Mount is crucial for understanding our Christian actions within real human history. Toward the end of these reflections—written in 1942 Germany—he says: “The Sermon on the Mount is either valid as the word of God’s world-reconciling love everywhere and at all times, or it is not really relevant for us at all” (243). “The responsibility of Jesus Christ for all human beings has love as its content and freedom as its form. . . . The commandments of God’s righteousness are fulfilled in vicarious representation, which means in concrete, responsible action of love for all human beings” (232). Very specifically he says, “by grounding responsible action in Jesus Christ we reaffirm precisely the limits of such action” (224). We must keep such comments in mind when he says that “the essence of responsible action intrinsically involves the sinless becoming guilty.” For he begins this sentence by saying: “Because of Jesus Christ . . .” Moreover, he follows it by saying, “It is a sacrilege and an outrageous perversion to extrapolate from this statement a blanket license to commit evil acts.

The final main chapter is about Bonhoeffer's prison spiritual disiplines and how he continued to think about his pacifism. I think Nation makes a lot of sense in this chapter, but Nation is also clear that he is doing a lot of speculation here because we cannot know all of the answers. The center of this chapter is using an essay from Barth scholar John Webster about Barth and applying it to Bonhoeffer. Again, another long quote and one of about a half dozen that I could choose:

“More than anything else,” therefore, this gospel entails “a matter of disorientation.” There is an immediate consequence to be drawn here for the church’s social and cultural witness: that witness must not proceed by transmuting the gospel into a stable, measurable, quantifiable social or cultural value. We can no more do that than we can channel a volcano into a domestic heating system. The gospel is no mere “principle” which can then be “applied” to issues about forms of common life or political economy. The gospel is about death and resurrection, new creation, and it is that new order of reality, rather than any immediate social applicability, which is the burden of the church’s testimony. (27) All of this has implications for how we think about the church. “Most fundamentally, it means that the church is what it is because of the gospel” (27). If this is to have any meaning then we must be “very strict to allow the gospel to exercise in an immediate way a controlling and critical influence” within our Christian communities (28). “‘Church’ is the event of gathering around the magnetic centre of the good news of Jesus Christ” (28). But since the church is possessed by rather than itself possessing the gospel, then “it will be most basically characterized by astonishment at the good news of Jesus” (29). The church is church both in its activities of gathering together and being dispersed into its daily life beyond the gathered community.

The epilogue discsses the people of Le Chambon, a village of about 5000 people who worked together to save 3000-5000 refugees, mostly Jewish, that Nation suggests was largely the result of the discipleship of a pastor who also was a committed pacifist.

I am not sure that Discipleship in a World Full of Nazis will change many minds. The very concept of a "Bonhoeffer moment" seems to suggest that at some point we can no longer just follow normal Christian ethics and we are now free to do things that at other points in time would not be justifiable. I have read plenty enough Bonhoeffer to know that he was far from perfect. He was a complex man who was inconsistent but in ways that I think Nation attempts to make sense of. One of the common tactics that Nation is using is to suggest that as a teacher and spiritual guide, Bonhoeffer would take positions that were not his own, but for the purpose of helping others to work through ideas. Or as I regularly do in my work as a spiritual director I become a conversation partner for the purpose of helping to explore a topic, not because I am taking a position of my own direct beliefs. Whether that is enough to move the terms of the conversation I am not rooted enough in the academic study of Bonhoeffer to be able to speculate about.

I have about 35 published highlights that you can read here.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/discipleship-in-a-w...

Summary: A reframing of the concept of racism, not as hatred on the basis of skin color, but as greed.

Racial capitalism is a concept that I have been aware of, but not dived deeply into. I read part of Asian Americans and the Spirit of Racial Capitalism by Jonathan Tran but put it aside when I had some other pressing things and never came back to it. I think, in part, I set it aside because I needed to grapple with some other things first. I have followed Malcolm Foley on social media (and his podcast) for a while. I have observed him from a distance coming across the concept of racial capitalism and how that shifted some of his language around racism. I pre-ordered The Anti-Greed Gospel a while ago precisely because I thought he could introduce the topic in a way that I could understand.

About a week before the book was released, Netgalley emailed and offered me an advance digital copy for review. The Anti-Greed Gospel fairly short. I read a chapter or so before bed and finished it in five days. (There are 8 chapters and the main text is about 165 pages. I had 55 highlights in my copy which you can see here.)

As I was reading I kept thinking that in some ways Critical Race Theory is centering how legal structures were the primary tool of racism while Racial Capitalism centered out greed and capitalism were the primary tool of racism. But that is both too simple and not nuanced enough. It is pretty well known that legal structures were essential to creating the concept of race. Race as we understand the modern category did not exist before the enlightenment when categorization became a mainstream tool of not just science, but also of economics and other areas of academics and culture. That is, of course, not to say that no one recognized that there were different skin colors, but to say that phenotypical skin color was not determinative of worth, value or identity in the way that scientific racism developed from the 18th to the 20th century.

Racial Capitalism and Critical Race Theory (CRT) both agree that legal structures were essential to creating a racial caste system in the US. And CRT and Racial Capitalism both agree that racial categories are a social reality, not a biological reality. There are other overlaps, but one of the common objections to CRT is that it believes that racism doesn't go away, it shifts. I think there are some nuances in how I (in my very non-expert way) see how some of the nuances of Racial Capitalism agree with that point, but shifts the view in a way that can be more helpful than CRT is broadly.

If racism is primarily an issue of greed and the oppression or subjugation of others for the purpose of wealth creation, then that approach is different from looking at legal structures that CRT does. Both of my introductions to Racial Capitalism were from Christians, so I do need to read a secular presentation to balance that out. But Foley and Tran are willing to talk about greed and the underlying capitalist system with a spiritual lens. (Similar to how some Christian presentations of CRT also can do that.) In spite of using a Christian lens, I think you can see that part of what racial capitalism is pointing out is that culture and systemic structures (law, capitalism, eduction, etc) work together to maintain the structures of racism so that neither interpersonal attacks not systemic attacks apart from one another get at the core problems of racism. Foley draws on the MLK and the civil rights movement for descriptive language.

"Race is not about hate and ignorance. It’s about greed. It always has been. And the purpose of this book is that you might understand the unholy relationship between race and greed, best understood not as a marriage but in terms of parentage: race and racism are children of Mammon....At its center is the claim that hate and ignorance are not at the root of race; rather, that root is greed. Notably, King, especially in the last few years of his life, drew attention to the three-headed evil that has plagued Western civilization: racism, materialism, and militarism. More pointedly, however, he drew attention to them in their most violent and common instantiations: white supremacy, capitalism, and war. These have been the inextricable evils of our day; we cannot address one of them apart from the two others. After revisiting King’s framework, I realized that self-interest binds these three evils together. This led me to recognize the three evils for what they really are: a demonic feedback loop of self-interest." (p1 and 6)

The early chapters are likely where most people will be doing the most highlighting. It is where the very nature of what racism is doing is being challenged. This is not a 100% change in approach, but I think a helpful refocus. Because it is an explicitly Christian presentation, it brings into play the role of distorted thinking and ethics brings into our larger societal systems. For Foley, the fact that slave owners must dehumanize to justify slavery or segregation means that other areas of ethical thinking are also distorted. Personal ethnics matters, but also so does systemic reasoning. The very nature of "efficiency" can be about minimizing waste, but once your ethics have been distorted, efficiency can use the loss of the concept of all being made in the image of God to justify profit over people.

There are other books that lay out some of the history of how Christianity and business interests intersected in unhelpful ways. Kevin Kruse points out that business interests used Christian rhetoric and institutions to mobilize Christians politically. Jesse Curtis talks about how business principle snuck into church planting and church growth models to maintain segregated churches. Sean McGever talks about how evangelism and mission of the church blinded the 17th and 18th century church to slavery’s evil. There are a lot of other books I have not gotten to about how extractive industries, particularly oil interests influenced modern evangelicalism. The development of capitalism has definitely impacted Christianity's understanding of the role of economics.

Foley's PhD dissertation was about lynching and his background in the historical study of lynching is central to The Anti-Greed Gospel. After the introduction and two chapters laying how the idea of racial capitalism and how it is engrained in our society, Foley lays out three examples of how we tend to respond to racism in the case of lynching. Two of those are mostly inadequate examples and one is a more positive examples. Francis Grimké and Atticus Haygood are the two negative examples. Grimke sees the problem of lynching as domination and exploitation. But his response as a pastor starts with black self improvement and white education. “Grimké falls into the same trap that many of us do: we see the material effects of racism, yet we address only the spiritual and mental remedies.” (p62) Later Grimké shifts to accepting violence when he sees that racial uplift and white education are not stopping lynching. (Grimké came to understand what many have learned, that information alone will not stop racism.)

Atticus Haygood also is opposed to lynching and, as the president of Emory University, was viewed as a racial progressive. But as with many white progressives before and after the civil war, he opposed the structures of slavery or Jim Crow, but not the underlying cultural assumption of racial hierarchy.

"Haygood’s theological and ethical imagination had atrophied to the point that he could claim that Black Americans were “brothers and sisters” and yet deny racial equality in every sense of the word. As much as he called for Black education and so-called brotherhood, Haygood still categorized Black people as a “national problem.” The point at which people themselves become a problem rather than the injustices that they are subjected to is the point at which ethical thought dies." (p72)

Foley's third figure, Ida B Wells, understands the structural nature of lynching and probably most importantly, that the surface level blame on black men raping white women was almost never the actual precipitating factor. In most cases, lynching was primarily about terrorism for the purpose of maintaining economic superiority. Whether it was individuals or communities, lynching was more likely to happen in communities where there was increasing Black economic self sufficiency. The KKK is one factor but at the time of most of Wells' work, the larger KKK movement had been pushed underground. The KKK from the 1880s until the 1920 less important structurally than it was before or after that period. Foley is pointing out here that Wells saw that economic independence was the center of lynching and how she maintained her Christian faith, about repentance and grace, while also drawing attention to how the lies of lynching worked to hide its actual reality.

Lynching no longer worked as a wide spread reality when economic systems changed and federal and state officials were no longer allowed to just look away from the problems. One of the point of her writing was that racial hierarchy placed the blame of lynching on the black victim's "crime." But the actual "burden was on white communities not to lynch but rather to be faithful to the faith that they claimed because, rather simply, one could not lynch and be Christian at the same time. As simple as that declaration may sound to us, it yielded death threats for Ida." (p 85)

"When lynching was conceived of as punishment, the only question that some asked was whether victims did something to deserve it. The proper moral imagination saw the brutality of lynching and concluded that no human being was worthy of it. Wells not only readjudicated every lynching but also indicted the very system that made lynchings appear reasonable." (p 87)

After the end of the introduction of the concept of racial capitalism and the exploration of the idea in history through the model of lynching, Foley spends the last third of the book grappling with how Christianity understands the problem of greed and how solidarity is a solution to that problem. A full chapter is spent on how Christianity grapples with violence as a response to oppression before moving onto another chapter about the role of truth in opposing sin. The final chapter call on the reader to look at a new vision of the kingdom of God to inspire creative thinking about how we can oppose racism (and greed) in a church that values truth and love and lives out that truth and love in solidarity with the vulnerable.

I think there are a number of reasons why at least on this initial introduction to racial capitalism, the concept of racism as primarily a problem of greed is more convicting than racism as a problem of individual hatred. First, basically no one self identifies as racist at this point. Even George Wallace after his overtly segregationist run for president in 1968 denied that he was a racist. But it is pretty hard to deny that greed does not have influence in our lives.

Second, I think that what I find most helpful about CRT is that it thinks about the problems of race in systemic terms not individual terms. For the purposes of CRT it does matter if you have racial animus as an individual, CRT is really only looking at systems. Racial capitalism maintains that systems oriented view, while having space for personal introspection. David French (I am paraphrasing from memory) says something like, "many non-racist people uphold racist policies for non-racist reasons." What French is pointing out is that systems do not fix themselves and once in place there are many reasons why those systems perpetuate themselves without individual motivations. Racial capitalism makes sense of school boundaries maintaining segregation for economics reasons. The impact is still segregation and still needs to be opposed. But I think a lot of white moderates or progressives are far more interested in maintaining their economic position than they are in addressing racism.

I think a third potential for racial capitalism is the history of Christian thinking about wealth. There are a number of other illustrations in The Anti-Greed Gospel, but this quote talking about Basil hints at the larger tools of Christianity to deal with greed.

"Basil utters a heart-stopping line in his sermon, aptly titled To the Rich: “The more you abound in wealth, the more you lack in love.” Basil, in his particular context, sees that the Scriptures frame a world in which accumulation almost always happens at someone else’s expense, and that person is often needy. Thus, the more you have and hold, the less you love your neighbor.

Basil here gives the reason for Christian generosity: it is not an extra nice-to-have element of the Christian life; rather, it is a fundamental act of obedience to the Great Commandments and, particularly, to the eighth and tenth commandments. It is difficult to steal and covet when your primary relationship with goods is thinking of how they can be redistributed to meet needs. None of this denies familial obligation, but it does remind us that love of neighbor requires redistribution, not just a different attitude about money." (p 20)

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/anti-greed-gospel/

Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.

Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.

We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.

A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.

I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.

A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.

In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.

As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.

This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.

https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-tony-diterlizzi/

This is a single review for the whole trilogy. I am cross posting on all three books.

Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.

Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.

We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.

A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.

I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.

A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.

In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.

As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.

This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-tony-diterlizzi/

This is a single review for the whole trilogy. I am cross posting on all three books.

Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.

Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.

We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.

A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.

I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.

A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.

In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.

As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.

This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-tony-diterlizzi/

Summary: The first definitive style biography of King in nearly 40 years.

At the end of the audiobook is an interview with Jonathan Eig and Lerone A. Martin, author of The Gospel of J Edgar Hoover. Their discussion about the lack of full biographies and the new sources is compelling. I had not realized that it has been over 40 years since Stephen Oates biography and nearly 40 years since Garrow's biography. Because I have read more recent books like The Seminarian and the The Sword and the Shield (joint biography of King and Malcolm X) as well as a number of histories were King played a major role in just didn't realize until I heard that interview how long it had been since a full biography.

Also detailed in that interview is new sources have been found or released. Eig is a journalist by training and history. You can tell that in his writing, but we are at that transition period when the Civil Rights generation is passing away. Eig says he was able to interview over 200 people who knew King. Some like Juanita Abernathy knew King well and were known figures. But Eig also interviewed minor figures, like his barber in Montgomery.

I am letting that interview at the end frame some of my thinking about the book, but it was clear from the start of the biography that Eig was trying to portray King as a flawed man. Similar to Alter's framing of Jimmy Carter, Eig has significant respect for King as a subject, but to write well about the whole man we do need to understand his weaknesses. I am going to talk more below about how he handles those weaknesses, but in that interview he said he wanted to keep King from being reduced and simplified.

One last point from the interview is that one of the significant sources that is fairly new are FBI files. Not all files have been declassified yet, but some have. Another set was declassified after the book was released. And another large set it scheduled to be released in 2027. Eig has no doubt about King's involvement in extramarital affairs. But he balances that with a more clear understanding of how J Edgar Hoover and the FBI as a whole were not just observers of affairs, but significant opponents of not just the civil rights movement in general but King in particular. The antagonism of the FBI and Hoover in particular was a significant part of how the shift in attitude toward both King and the civil rights movement. It was not just the point when King voiced opposition to the Vietnam war, but throughout the whole movement the FBI was acting as a propaganda machine against the civil rights movement, not just with the public but especially in harming the relationship that King had with the President and the Department of Justice. The affairs were one excuse, but not the first excuse or the main excuse for why the civil rights movement and King in particular were dangerous. The very next day after the 1963 March on Washington, the FBI puts out a memo labeling King as the greatest threat to American democracy. Hoover, as detailed in Lerone Martin's book was a Christian Nationalist with strong views of white racial superiority. He both viewed the civil rights movement as a communist plant or distraction, but also a violation of the natural order.

After King's assassination, COINTELPRO became better known for its work at undermining the civil rights movement with informants and plants and work to internally weaken civil rights organization including threats against funders, but the formal work of COINTELPRO was in existence by 1956. The "anonymous" letter encouraging King to commit suicide is well known, but less well know is how much effort the FBI put into seeding false or misleading stories into he press about Civil Rights leaders (including King) and working to undermine financial support of the movement. I suspect that as much as we know and is detailed here in Eig's book, more will be revealed in upcoming document releases.

Part of what I think is handled well by Eig is King's limitations. Everyone has a limited capacity (no one can do it all or be all things). King was empathetic, a great orator and deeply interested in his faith and justice. But he wasn't a grass roots organizer like Ella Baker or a theoretical philosopher of race and justice. His orientation to avoid interpersonal conflict meant that personal negotiation with political or business opponents to integration had a different private and public mode. But more importantly, his lack of balancing factors in his life meant that he was always traveling and following the action, not focused on proactive work. (Again, this was influenced by the FBI's work to interrupt funding.) The effort of keeping SCLC funded and running was left him unable to be with people in more grassroots ways that kept him energized. King was pushed into a role of icon at a very young age, which asked him to be all things in a way that no human could have.

There is a very good discussion about the 1965-1968 era and the ways that the Civil Rights movements began to break apart. That has of course been discussed widely in many different ways. Part of the traditional discussion is the slowness of change. Brown v Board and Montgomery happened in 1954, but laws around housing segregation, the biggest factor in school segregation in metro urban areas was not passed until 1968. The Cold War, one of the background factors in propelling civil rights forward crashed into Vietnam protests, which lowered the pressure on federal officials to respond to global interests. The slowing of US economic growth in the mid 1960s which moved to rapid inflation and recession in the 1970s and 80s allowed politicians and business leaders to scapegoat civil rights, affirmative action and welfare programs instead of globalization and aging business infrastructure. Many discussion about the breakup of the civil rights movement is about the movement stripped of the larger context of history. I think Eig could have included more about the broader context, but he included more about the context than what I have seen in other presentations.

As I was reading Eig's book I started reading an advance copy of Malcolm Foley's Anti-Greed Gospel. Foley is presenting a model of discussion of race centered on racial capitalism. Broadly, this can be thought of an a different mode of discussion based on racism as an economic reality similar to the way that Critical Race Theory is centered on racism as a legal reality. CRT I think has value in talking about how slow structural changes to US law and practice were. The fact that my kids today go to a school that is 90% racial minorities and 70% low income, when another school just a half mile away in the same district is 11% Black or Hispanic and 7% low income is a structural issues. But racial capitalism as an idea I think also speaks to that structural issue (resistance to changing school zoning because of its impact on housing prices) as well as the way that funding for the Civil Rights movement drying up exactly when it started to expand its target beyond voting rights. King always had a vision for the role of economics in racism, but many of the white participants in those movement did not fully embrace that. And the pragmatic supporters of desegregation who were more interested its impact on anti-communism efforts than on the way that the civil rights movement was connected to a global anti colonialism movement fell away when King started speaking about Vietnam.

No book is perfect, and it is difficult to present a figure like King well when so much of his story is fixed in the minds of most readers. But I think there is value in King: A Life not just because there is new data and that Eig spends a lot of time on Coretta in ways that some others do not (including being the first to write about personal letters between Coretta and Martin). Eig is a punchy writer and the story moves along with force that is not always the case with long biographies. Obviously, this is a book that won a Pulitzer Prize, so it does not need my stamp of approval. About halfway through the book I was not sure there was much different form Oates biography and other shorter versions of King that I had read, but I think the second half of the book showed why this biography has been so well received.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/king/

Summary: A widower inherits a British estate, but he may lose it before he is even unpacked.

I am trying to read more fiction. This is a goal that I have almost every year. I really am conviced that fiction is important, but I have a tendancy to gravitate toward "important" books. I saw that the Book of Hours was on sale and I picked it up. I read his book The Maestro when I was in high school and I enjoyed it. It was a book about a musician who was a real artist and as he came to faith he saw he could incorporate his faith and art. I real a lot of Christian novels as a teen and I have read very few past my teen years because so few felt worthwhile.

As I read The Book of Hours I couldn't help but think about it as a novel version of a Hallmark movie. I enjoy a Hallmark movie very now and then, but I don't really confused it for great art. It is fluff and fluff every now and then if fine. As much as can enjoy some fluff here and there, I do think that Karen Swallow Prior's critique of Christians as overly attached to Victorian values, and mistake those Victorian values for Christian ones fits here. This is a sentimental novel that deserves the critique that Prior has for senatamental novels. But it also fits all of the standard Hallmark tropes. A widower from out of town inherits an estate. He is penniless and finds the estate is going to soon be sold for back taxes. He meets the town's young (single) doctor who immediately hates him for not caring about the property and allowing it to fall into disrepair. There is a greedy developer to provide some tension.

And while I don't think it really makes sense within the story, the widower's wife and her beloved aunt jointly wrote him clues before they both died that he has to find. If he does, he may find something valuable that he can sell to keep the property. That is if the sketchy gardener (who used to date the doctor) doesn't stop them first. Along the way the widower and the doctor help the local vicar in his fight to get the church bells reinstated in the town again so that the community can remember that God. The sentamental, nearly love at first sight, romance between the grieving widower who seems to have gotten over his late wife's cancer death very quickly after showing up doesn't have any real depth.

The story is fine. For the $2 price I paid, I am not disappointed, but I also have no real interest in picking up another book by the same author. There are a lot of good novels that have more depth to them than this one.

I posted this on my blog originally at https://bookwi.se/book-of-hours/

Summary: A graphic novel biography of Lewis and Tolkien’s friendship.

This is the fifth book I have read by John Hendrix. I have written about his biographies of John Brown and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is more like the biography of Bonhoeffer than John Brown. The biography of John Brown was about 40 pages and more similar to Hendrix’s books about Jesus in that length and format. The longer biographies, this one and the Bonhoeffer one, are a combination of text and graphics. It is not unusually for there to be 200 words on a page. Some pages are predominately graphics, especially the sections where a lion and a wizard are narrating the story. But there are long sections that are more text heavy.

And when you think about these as graphic novels, you should think about a graphic novel as a format, not an age target. These are readable for late teens, but they are not children’s books. There are long sections about the academic meaning of myth, or how stories communicate truth. I have seen a couple of reviews that thought those longer sections were not as helpful, but I can see their point. This isn’t a biography of the two men as much as it is a biography of the conversation that Tolkien and Lewis and another friend had about viewing Christianity as “true myth” that helped Lewis overcome his objections to Christianity.

That famous conversation wasn’t just instrumental to Lewis’ conversion to Christianity, it was also instrumental to Christianity reclaiming story as a feature in understanding the Bible and the world around us. I recently read a book about how Lewis was influenced by medieval thought and Hendrix’s book also pointed out how Lewis and Tolkien, because they were shaped by literature, helped to move Protestant Christianity to rediscover story and myth as important intellectual categories. Myth doesn’t mean “untrue” or fiction, myth in Lewis and Tolkien's view was about deeper systems of thought. I don’t think that Lewis or Tolkien would approve of Jordan Peterson’s use of the Old Testament, but Peterson has been influenced by the idea of myth that Lewis and Tolkien were promoting and which is discussed well here.

Necessarily, graphic novels use the format of image to communicate. I think Hendrix does a great job of communicating information, using the format to communicate in ways that text alone would make difficult. And he includes a lightness and humor to his books that is appropriate to the subject, but make the books enjoyable.

This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/mythmakers/