Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl

It was my time to choose a book for Book Club and I picked a book that had long been on my list: Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl. Dennis Prager says it's his favorite book and it changed his life.

So my expectations were high.

Plus I've read A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Gulag Archipelago, and Darkness at Noon. All in the same genre. 

I think because of my prior exposure to those books, this one did not seem as impactful. If anything, I'd say The Gulag Archipelago was the one that most made an impression on me.

Frankl writes as do the others, disjointed and out of chronological order. It's more thematic. It makes me wonder if having that kind of state-sponsored trauma impacts one's ability to tell the story. Or perhaps for them, it's not about the day-to-day events, but the larger meaning behind it all. 

Certainly Frankl wants to get at why he and his fellow prisoners suffered the way they did at the hands of the Nazis. Even before being detained, Frankl was spreading interested in the question of meaning and purpose in life. He was convinced that if a man did not have a sense of meaning or purpose he would die either mentally or even physically. So he looked on his fellow prisoners as a kind of science experiment. He clearly saw that those who gave up hope always died. It was those, like himself, who felt that their unjust suffering had a purpose of some sort that survived. 

I suppose the most remarkable thing about the book (and the others of the same genre) is how disconnected they were from their own tortures. They can discuss it dispassionately and disconnect from the personal experience of it. I suppose that necessary for survival. In Solzhenitsyn's case, he writes in a sarcastic manner, further removing himself from the horror. 

Frankl is also remarkable for the fact that he could forgive and move on once released from the prison. He recognized the humanity of each person, whether guard or prisoner. All had the ability to be cruel or kind. He famously states, "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts."

The second half of his book discusses his theory of "Logotherapy." In a nutshell, after the war, he started his psychiatric practice helping people discover meaning in their lives. He was convinced that lack of meaning and purpose was the root of all mental suffering. He worked to reframe and redirect his patients towards discovering meaning in their circumstances, whatever they be.

One disappointment is that he never directs the reader to faith. I think he had faith in God as a result of his Judaism, but he never recommends that faith as a source of meaning and purpose. I suppose that's because he wants everyone, believer or not, to be able to access a life filled with meaning. That's a fair point. Obviously for me, a life whose meaning is found outside of God is just a temporary fill, but for Frankl that's enough. 

The book is worth reading because it's such a cultural touchstone. I'm sorry to say it did not impact me the way it impacted some. I wish it had. 

Tuck Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt

Our book club decided to choose a "re-read a book you loved as a child." Our pick was Tuck Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt. I've never read it, so it was fun to dive into. 

The story centers around the Tuck family, who have drunk a magic elixir and now are fated to live forever, and a little girl named Winnie, who discovers their secret.

The book details the lengths to which the Tucks will go to keep word from getting out. Although it's a child's book, some of the adventures could give a child nightmares. 

Although it's set in the late 1800s, it soon became clear to me that the book had a more modern origin. Sure enough, it was written in 1975. That made sense. That's a time when books were full of children with voices sounding very much like adults. Winnie is precocious and thinks and speaks and reasons in a way her adult author imagines a child might. But she actually reveals an adult's ruminations on deep questions. 

The book was an easy read. Not exactly satisfying. It's not supposed to "end well" according to the author. Some questions and simply beyond our purview and offer no easy answers. Tuck raises questions but doesn't answer them in a way that feels satisfactory.

The Scarlet Pimpernel by Baroness Emmuska Orczy

Part of my never-ending endeavor to educate myself involves reading the classics. The latest is The Scarlet Pimpernel by Baroness Emmuska Orczy. 

I actually may have read this book before. It felt very familiar.

The basic plot revolves around an anonymous English hero rescuing French aristocrats from the guillotine during the French Revolution. His name is a problem. "The Scarlet Pimpernel" refers to a small red, star-shaped flower the hero has chosen as his signature. Call him the Red Rose or the Burgundy Blossom. I simply cannot abide the word "Pimpernel." Call it my own bias.

That aside, once the story begins, it tells of masterful disguises and daring deception. But like a murder mystery with only one suspect, the identity of the Scarlet Pimpernel becomes clear very early on (Or I had already read the book.) 

His evil pursuer is Cheuvelin, a member of the Committee of Publicc Safety. Everything about him screams "villain." Our heroine, Lady Blakeney, is the most beautiful, charismatic, and intelligent woman to be found in either France or England. Her husband is the dull-witted, rich, and lazy playboy Lord Percy Blackeney. All other characters are supporting characters.

Between the stereotypes and silly language (Lots of "La!," and "Odd's fish".) the book is a breeze to read. It's silly and predictable, but certainly not a waste of time.

The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan

I'm developing a new-found respect for the theological seriousness of the Puritans. So when our book club proposed The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan, I was excited to re-read it. (I think I read it as a kid.)

Although an allegory with names specifically designed to inform the reader of its allegorical qualities (Mr. Worldly-Wise, Ignorance, Christian), the story elucidates real, deep theological discussions. 

Christian has come to realize that his city is set for destruction and only by traveling to the Celestial City can he hope to be saved. Evangelist tells him the way to the path. In the end, it is a path he must travel alone, although he has companions at times. On the journey he meets all the classical temptations a Christian faces: Despair, Pleasure, Sloth.

Just when all seems lost, Christian is reminded of his journey and the good that awaits him. Ironically, just as he crosses the river into the Celestial City he experiences such deep doubt that he almost sinks. 

Bunyan is writing the story from prison. I suspect much of Christian's story is autobiographical. Perhaps Bunyan, close to death at times, experienced his own sinking doubt. 

The story is not an easy read, but well-worth reading. It can cause common obstacles in the life of a Christian to come alive.

Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt

My friend Mary recommended Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt, and if Mary recommends it, I'm reading it.

This book is a delight. 

Will it change your life? Probably not. But the highly improbably story of a widow in a small town befriending an octopus sucked me in. 

The story is sweet. 

It offers a glimpse into the lives of the people in a small town. It vividly demonstrates the fact that everyone has their own story and that story is always bittersweet.

The story begins with "Day 1,299 of My Captivity." The first entry is from the octopus, Marcellus, point of view. Obviously this captures the readers attention and begs explanation. 

Next on the list of characters is Tova Sullivan. She is widowed and her only son drowned just after graduating high school. 

She is lonely. Enter Marcellus. And others. The book is populated by interesting people all trying to figure out life.

I definitely recommend it. Sweet and charming read.

Portrait of a Lady by Henry James

Summer reading means jumping into some classic books I've not yet read. This summer it was Portrait of a Lady by Henry James. 

It was published in 1881, apparently at a time when authors were trying to dive deeply into what it meant to be human and what limitations that included.

The book is the story of a young American woman, Isabel Archer, who has lost both parents. Her aunt, who has married rich in England, brings her to that island nation as a sort of project. While there, Isabel's rich uncle dies, leaving her a fortune. The set-up for this strains credulity, as she hardly knows him, but it is apparently a necessary plot fixture for James' own project.

At this point, as Isabel is so incredibly charismatic and attractive (on the inside), no man can resist her charms, and she has money to boot, the world is her oyster. She can literally choose any life she desires. Initially desiring to see the world unencumbered by a love interest. she and a female friend launch into a European tour. 

Despite having any pick of any man, and despite making it quite clear to all who ask that she is not suited nor desirous of marriage, she chooses to marry an older widower with a teenage daughter who delights in seeing the world through jaded eyes. She could have had the delightful, rich, and young Lord Warburton, the charming and devoted (also rich) American businessman, Casper Goodwood, or her sweet, adoring, and sickly cousin, Ralph Touchett. Why she chooses Gilbert Osmond is anyone's guess. 

Literally.

It's not exactly clear when or why she did choose him. The reader is just informed of it three years later. 

It doesn't end well. Slowly Osmond begins to turn his cynicism on his wife and she feels that she can never live up to his expectations. That's because she can't. He's so jaded about everything, except his daughter, that nothing can meet his standards. 

And then there's the enigmatic Madame Merle always hovering in the background. She seems to have orchestrated the marriage between Isabel and Gilbert, but her motivation is not clear. Why she doesn't marry him herself is left an open question. They'd be perfect for each other.

The end. 

Seriously, the book ends with an unhappy marriage. Secrets are revealed. The cousin dies. Most everyone is disappointed. And that's it.

I had to read up on why this book is a "classic." Apparently James was making the point that humans, given every advantage, will still choose badly. We are simply incapable of making good decisions despite our best intentions. Isabel is repeatedly praised for her intelligence, yet this is nothing but a trap. It's her attraction to Osmond's brains and wit that leads her astray. James seems to imply that people end up happy by luck alone. We are a deceiving and deceived thing.

I suppose there is something to that. But it doesn't mean I agree with James. He's as cynical as Osmond. Humans have agency. Our intentions and choices matter. We are not destined to the roll of the dice. While luck plays a role, we play a greater role in our destinies than James would seem to think we do. 

On a side note, I really hate the way authors, male and female, will paint a female protagonist in broad terms and "tell" rather than "show." At no point, other than from the descriptive words about Isabel and her own description of herself, do I catch a glimpse of a charming and intelligent young lady, attractive to all who enter her sphere. She simply IS charming and attractive. It's like women cannot be full-formed characters about whom the reader can make her own judgment. Personally, I found Isabel boring and insipid. She's arrogant in the way only the young and ignorant know how to be. For all her worldly wisdom, she has no actual wisdom. She might say and think deep thoughts but they are never revealed to the reader. We must take James's word for it.

Maybe if I re-read the book with James' point in mind, I would see more value in the book. But I'm not sure what the point of a book is that tells the reader all your choices are an illusion. Maybe it's James who is deceived.

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Serman Alexie

Our book club read The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Serman Alexie as part of our "Novel with a Native American as a main character" genre. My proposal was Last of the Mohicans. 

The short take on the book was that it was a YA novel about a boy growing up on an Indian reservation who makes the decision to go to the nearby "white" school. I had to sigh when I read that. I mean, the book writes itself: Boy feels like an outsider in both places. He's bullied. He's stereotyped. He aims for a girl way out of his league. He finally settles into some kind of stasis in which he comes to believe he is who he is. Others will not define him. 

And that's the book. Literally. I wasn't exactly disappointed. I just got exactly what I expected. Junior is too smart for the rez, so a teacher urges him to attend the closest public school outside the reservation. Upon discovering his plan, his best friend beats him up. The white students at his new school, where strangely enough a beautiful girl sits in front of him and after a brief introduction ignores him, make fun of him and seem to threaten violence. Plot twist, he eventually kinda gets the girl when he discovers her secret: She, too, feels pressure to perform and conform. Junior eventually develops a level of respect from both communities and realizes he will have to live permanently in both worlds.

Junior's running commentary about the reservation is interesting and had the book sought to dive deeper into those seemingly intractable issues, it would have been more interesting. If Junior would have had to examine himself more deeply for his own blind spots and vices, it would have made for better literature. Instead it's another one of countless, "I never really felt like I belonged" navel-gazing novels. It's Catcher in the Rye for Native Americans. The difference is no one likes Holden Caulfield, while Junior is certainly lovable. I just want to hug him. It's a "let me tell you my story of the particular way in which I discovered that, although I didn't fit in, I had to learn to love myself the way I am." It's actually everyone's story and interesting in its specifics. 

We are so far from literature exposing us to real human foibles and the concomitant search for virtue. My classical teacher self is on full display in that sentence. 

The book is fun. It's dessert. It isn't something you will read twice. 
 

Emma by Jane Austen

I found the beautiful copy of Emma by Jane Austen in our neighborhood "Little Library." What a treasure!

I cannot help but compare it to Pride and Prejudice. 

Apparently, at some point in the past, Emma notices that Mr. Watson would be perfect for her tutor, Miss. Taylor. The book opens with their marriage and Emma believes herself highly prescient. 

But needing a new person to work her magic upon, she alights on the new girl in the local boarding school, Miss Smith. With no knowledge of her parentage, she provides a blank slate which Emma can work to improve. Initially, she thinks Mr. Weston, the local cleric is a terrific fit. Even though her friend and neighbor Mr. Knightley declares Mr. Weston far too aware of his ability to marry "up," Emma continues to push Miss. Smith away from a local farmer and towards the young parson. 

Mr. Knightly is right and Miss Smith is devastated. Emma swears off matchmaking. 

When Mr. Weston's adult son, Frank Churchill, finally deigns to visit and meet his new step-mother, Emma's antennae go up. Even after putting all thoughts of making matches behind her, she cannot help but dive into neighborhood gossip. Miss Smith is still available, and she even finds herself coming under his sway. Despite Mr. Knightley's attempts to reign in the brattier parts of Emma, she continues to gossip and speculate. In one particularly painful moment, she is cruel to a local, poor spinster. Mr. Knightley rather harshly holds her to account.

Having to beg Miss Bates for forgiveness and seeing all the damage she has done to Miss Smith finally causes Emma to face up to her own terrible lack of virtue. Despite it all, Mr. Knightley declares his love for her and proposes. He's even willing to move into her home so that her father will not have to part with her. Could he be more perfect?

What I liked about this book is Emma's sheer brattiness. She's proud, gossipy, arrogant, and sees the world as needing her tending. But she's also at heart kind and able to see her own faults. She's a better Elizabeth Bennet than Elizabeth Bennet. We come to love her because she's such a mess.

Mr. Knightley, on the other hand, is no Darcy. Yes he's rich and proud, but he's practically perfect. It seems he loves Emma because she's the only woman of equal standing available to him. He does see her heart and knows her to be kind, but mostly she just seems silly and very young to his age and wisdom. She is his project.

Emma's father, Mr. Woodhouse, is a hypochondriac that we are supposed to love for his little idiosyncrasies. But I don't. He imposes his will upon all around him and is completely unwilling to bend or shift his opinion on any matter. He's no lovable curmudgeon Mr. Bennet. 

Like any Austen, we see the full panoply of human existence. She's an amazing observer of the human condition and bring us characters we swear we know!

A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry

Our senior American Literature is probably going to be reading A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry next year. Since I've never read it, I thought it would be a good time to dive in.

It's a play, so it's short. I read it in a few hours.

It tells the story of a working-class black family with the four adults, a matriarch, her son and daughter-in-law, and her college-aged daughter, and one child of the Younger family living in a small two-bedroom apartment. 

They are tired and world-wary, but the promise of a $10,000 life insurance pay out holds out hope. 

Walter is the "man of the home" denied that role by his proud mother. Although it's her money (the settlement is from the death of her husband), Walter has big plans to quit his chauffeur job and buy a liquor store. Mama, wants nothing to do with that. Walter's sister, Beneatha, needs the money for college. She wants to be a doctor. Ruth, the daughter-in-law, and Mama would love a house, with a yard and more living space.

Similar to The Jungle, this family on the edge experiences heartbreak after heartbreak. Once I noticed this similarity, I almost gave up on the book.

Fortunately, little of the book deals with race. It's post-war America and so they are subject to the obvious racism prevalent at the time, but that is not the source of their troubles. Hansberry makes clear that the family has it within their power to better their lives. 

The book ends in dignity and the promise of a better tomorrow. Of course they are not out of the woods and the a reader 50 years in the future knows the outcome could still be bleak. But I really loved the human dignity displayed at the end. 

The title comes from a Langston Hughs poem, "What happens to a dream deferred?/ Does it dry up/ Like a raisin in the sun?" All the Youngers, including the deceased Mr. Younger, have dreams. Those dreams are often frustrated, sometimes thought their choices and sometimes through bad luck. Yet the dream of a dream survives in this book, even when it looks the bleakest.

A Little Book for New Historians by Robert Tracy McKenzie

This book, A Little Book for New Historians by Robert Tracy McKenzie, was recommended by a member of our History team. It's short, but packs a powerful punch.

He begins by defining History. It doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult, but he starts with telling us what History is not: it is not the past. Looping C.S. Lewis into his argument, he makes the persuasive case that the past is comparable to a vast ocean: each moment which has ever occurred is a tiny drop. Only God knows the past, but we mortals can access limited parts of it, at least those parts that can be remembered. And "remembered" is the operative word. History is the remembered past. History is the collective memory of a people, and just as memory forms a person's identity, so History forms the people. Therefore the study of History should engender awe and humility as we struggle to remember who we are.

But if History is not necessarily the past, what is it? History is actually many things and must therefore be understood differently depending on the purpose of studying it. It is first of all an intellectual discipline. As such, it involves analyzing evidence and making arguments. The historian must love his subject and treat it as an object of love, while at the same time thinking critically about sources and veracity. We treat figures from the past as made in the imago dei, while recognizing that human are fallen and flawed and subject to cultural currents (as are we today). This intellectual discipline involves four distinct categories: historical information, historical understanding, historical thinking skills, and historical consciousness. After gathering the facts as best as we are able, we need to fit those facts together into a coherent whole. Then we make logical and persuasive arguments concerning the past and allow the whole process to change both ourselves and how we see the world. This final point is crucial. History without a look inward is antiquarianism, the study of history for history's sake. 

But History is not only a collective memory, it is a conversation. We speak to each other of our findings and arguments (secondary sources) and we speak to the dead (primary sources) because their ideas are still with us. We must enter that conversation with humility, acknowledging the limitations definitional to humans. All, whether other historians, historical figures, or ourselves, are struggling to understand the times and each comes with his own perspectives, biases, and blind spots. This conversation is the real point of History. Facts and figures will be forgotten, but the interpretation of those discreet points and the way in which we invite that interpretation to mold us will not be. It must therefore be top of mind that although the historian talks with the dead, he is speaking to the living. 

While History is a collective memory, an intellectual discipline, and a conversation, History is most importantly a mirror. Without an application to humans living today, History becomes a parody of its biggest criticism, a collection of dates and dead people (usually dead, white males). The Christian historian will take the sovereignty of God as a given. But the Christian historian must be careful not to ascribe motives to the workings of God. Only with extreme arrogance can we proclaim that God is doing this or that for this or that purpose. We know for a fact that History is the working out of the Gospel message as God seeks to redeem a lost and broken world. We know that History is moving towards the return of Christ and of Jesus's dominion over all. We know that nothing happens without the knowledge of God. Beyond that it's all speculation and we should tread lightly. 

But if History is a mirror, what should it reveal? Moral judgment is the act of judging the morality of past actors. In some respects, this is necessary. We should be able to say with confidence that the Aztec's proclivity for human sacrifice was evil. Where we should be wary is in concluding that we, ourselves, would never practice such depravity. Here we are invited to make a moral reflection. Would I, immersed in the world of the Aztecs, have accepted or even advocated for human sacrifice? The answer, if we are being honest, is often, yes. We need therefore to ask the next question, why? What in my heart makes me susceptible to cultural norms and the will to power such that I might find myself cheering as an innocent victim dies? And then follow that by asking, what am I blindly following today? What areas do I accept or advocate that run directly counter to the Word of God? McKenzie invites the historian to look closely at the strange over the familiar as areas that particularly challenge and reveal blindspots. 

McKenzie ends with three questions vital to the study of History:

1. How does what I am learning informing how I see the world?
2. How does it change how I understand myself? 
3. What does the knowledge that I'm acquiring require of me? 

I would add, how does this knowledge allow me to fulfill my purpose of glorifying Good and enjoying Him forever?

Only God knows the entirety of the story He is writing. As we study History, we fallen and flawed humans, depraved and blind, seek to know the very mind of God. We join in with the chorus of those, not actually dead, but our brothers and sisters gone home before us, to discover the immensity of the story He is telling about Himself. We stand on holy ground, seeking Him, and delighting in the glimpses He allows.

Curtain: Poirot's Last Case by Agatha Christie

With a bit of sadness, I read the last of the three books in this anthology, Curtain: Poirot's Last Case by Agatha Christie. It's his last case because, well... it's definitely his last case. 

I also read his first case just before this because Poirot is first introduced to the world in the same location as this story. It's a fitting ending. 

Once again Poirot is back at Styles. He knows a murderer is on the premise, but he's not sure who the murderer is. He calls Hastings to join him as his eyes and ears to provide the clues he needs before the person kills again. Hastings is frustrated that Poirot will not tell him the name of the suspect, but agrees to supply all the information he can. 

As usual identities are concealed and connections hidden. Just like the reader, Hastings will not solve the case. That's why the world needs Poirot.

The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie

After our book club read Murder on the Orient Express I got on a Christie kick. I was told that if I wanted to read Curtain: Poirot's Last Case I needed to read The Mysterious Affair at Styles. Apparently Curtain refers back to that novel.

This is the book that introduced the world to the eccentric Hercule Poirot. He seems to have been born fully formed with a backstory and everything. He's living in retirement in the English village of Styles for an undisclosed reason for an undisclosed time, but our main character, Arthur Hastings, has already heard of him and knows of all his exploits while on a Belgium police force. 

Of course someone must be murdered to be a proper murder mystery. And it's the most obvious murder/suspect of all: A wealthy widows marries a younger, dashing man and is found dead of strychnine poisoning. 

But not so fast. What about the stepson in need of money, his distant wife, the other odd stepson, the young and beautiful ward, the strange doctor who is an expert in poisons? No one is who they say they are. Everyone in an Agatha Christie novel has a secret identity and just plain secrets. Poirot and his little gray cells show up to solve a case that, according to him at least, should be obvious.

Spoiler, it's not. 

But Christie has introduced the world to an inimitable character and his trusty sidekick, Hastings. Until the day he dies, Hasting, although he doesn't know it yet, will play us, the befuddled audience, in almost all the Poirot novels. We, like Hasting, will struggle to see the "obvious" clues and will provide a fantastic foil to Poirot's brilliance. 

The days of murder before DNA and forensics offer a tantalizing view of what a mind, fully concentrated, might be capable of. A mind, that is, written into existence, fully formed, by Agatha Christie.

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie

The second story in this this edition, by Agatha Christie, was so much fun. The ending, completely caught me off-guard! 

Poirot is once again on the scene when a sensational murder takes place. But Hastings is not and so Poirot must turn to Dr. Shepherd. As a doctor, he is intimately acquainted with the town's secrets. He knows Roger Ackroyd well enough to know that he was being blackmailed. He knows Ackroyd's love interest killed her husband and then killed herself. And he knows Ackroyd might know who else knows. Except Ackroyd ends up dead and that information does with him. Unless Poirot can solve the case!

I love reading Christie, although I never solve the mystery before its revealed, because I can just read and relax. I love being surprised by the ending and this one didn't fail to produce. 

Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie

Our book club suggested Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie for the "mystery" genre.

Although I have read it before, of course I don't remember the ending. It was a great way to jump back into the Christie books and the mystery genre in general. Obviously she's the best. 

In classic Christie fashion, no one is who they seem, the murder takes place in a room locked from the inside, and Poirot needs nothing but his little gray cells to solve the case. 

In this story, Poirot is on a train, full of people in a typically low travel time. He barely finds a room on-board. A snow storm stops the train in its tracks and the scene is set for a murder. The list of suspects is confined to the passengers. The clues lead to everyone and no one. Confusion abounds and the snow is melting. Poirot must think fast.

So much fun, I read the other two novels in this beautiful edition!

The Beast that Crouches at the Door by Rabbi David Foreman

I've been listening to the BEMA podcast and they reference this book quite a bit, The Beast that Crouches at the Door by Rabbi David Foreman. Obviously I had to give it a try.

What a powerful book full of new insights!

It's written by a Jewish Rabbi, and so he grounds most of his teaching in the original Hebrew wording. Therefore most of his insights are not necessarily available to those of us who read the Bible in translation. 

Foreman dives in with a discussion of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Notice the Tree of Life is  not off limits.). It seems self-evident that the knowledge of good and evil would be something valuable to have. But in Foreman's telling, before this knowledge was grasped, humans only knew "true" and "false" insofar as a thing lined up with the thinking of God. Now "good" (I like it) and "evil" (I don't like it) enter into the picture. We are suddenly conflicted. God says one thing is "good," but I think something else is "good." And didn't God put that desire in me in the first place? 

This leads to a discussion of the snake, who is called "crafty," or "naked." The snake is quite naked in his arguments. God said one thing, "Don't eat," but your desires say something else, "Eat." Which one takes precedence? The snake nakedly appeals to Eve's desire, even her desire to "be like God." We've been fighting this battle ever since. 

After the Fall, when God approaches man, He asks, "Where are you?" The understanding is not that God didn't know where they were located; it is that they were not where the were supposed to be (akin to "Where are all the good men?"). Foreman speculates that the reason Adam and Eve felt "naked" is because for the first time their desires are ruling their hearts rather than the Word of God. And that frightens them. Their own physical nakedness is no longer pure and innocent, but takes on a much darker tone.

This story of desire trumping all is paralleled in the story of Cain and Able. Once again, they are given a choice. Obey God or your desire. Although God did not ask for a sacrifice, Cain, whose name literally means "acquire," decides to offer God some of his produce, maybe in order to use (Hebrew "et") God for further blessing and the ability to acquire more. Able ("breath" or "vapor") chips in with his best. Seeing Cain's heart, God rejects his sacrifice. God responds to Cain's disappointment by telling him he has the same choice as his parents, respond in obedience or allow desire to take over. 

We all know how that story ended. 

God's punishment is three-fold: Cursed from the ground, no longer have access to the best, forced to wander and never be able to truly acquire. Cain acted as an animal, as the snake told Eve to do, and let his desire inspire murderous rashness. Now Cain would live an animalistic existence. Cain seems to recognize  that God has conscripted him to a life of a beast, and worries he will be killed by another. Interestingly the story replays itself in future generations with Jabal (almost the identical word for Able), and Tubal-Cain, who made weapons, thereby perfecting methods of killing. The Midrashes say Lamech killed Cain, mistaking him for a beast, thereby bringing the punishment on himself and avenging Able.

From there the story is a continuous repetition of man as a creating being, never knowing when to say "enough," always driven by his desire. 

This book offers so much more and is a fascinating read!

The Exodus You Almost Passed Over by Rabbi David Fohrman

After listening to the BEMA podcast on the Jewish understanding of the Torah, I decided to buy the book on which the lessons were based. I cannot stop raving about, The Exodus You Almost Passed Over by Rabbi David Fohrman. Fohrman is not a Christian, but takes Judaism and the Jewish perspective on the text very seriously. In doing so, he approaches the story from an "eastern" perspective in which one is invited to ask questions of the text and assume meaning only discovered through a deep dive.

He begins in a way which would never be taught in any Christian church and points out some obvious oddities about the story. Why didn't God just get the Israelites out through smiting all the Egyptians, blinding them while the Israelites escaped, or simply killing Pharaoh? Why did God go through the whole "Ten Plagues" thing at all? Fohrman quickly makes it clear that God was after much more than the freeing of the Israelite slaves; He wanted Pharaoh's heart. He wanted to show Pharaoh that He was a God above all other gods and give Pharaoh the opportunity to proclaim Him to the nations of the earth. He is the Creator/Father and we owe him both love and obedience. He is a God like nothing Pharaoh can even conceive. 

Fohrman suggests God had a Plan A, "The Easy Way," Pharaoh consents and the off the Israelites go, a Plan B, "The Hard Way," in which Pharaoh, eventually convinced of his own free will, recognizes who God is and submits to His call, or Plan C, "God's Will Prevails Despite Pharaoh." All of the plans would convince Pharaoh of who God is and all would lead to the "birth" of God's first-born (bechor). But in both Plan A and Plan B, Pharaoh would, of his own free-will come to understand God's loving and providential character and respond in a moral fashion by freeing his slaves. In Plan C, Pharaoh would be forced to free God's people, but would never relent of his stubborn refusal to recognize the Creator/Father God. 

The hardening of Pharaoh's heart begins early (Ex. 7:13). Moses and Aaron have just demonstrated their God-given ability to cast down their rods, which turn into snakes, and devour those of the Egyptian magicians. This should have been enough. The message was clear: One God to rule them all. But "Pharaoh's heart was hardened." Interestingly, Torah uses two Hebrew words for "harden." Chizuk halev refers to "strengthening" or giving yourself a pep-talk. This is what Pharaoh believes he is doing, strengthening his resolve to not listen to the prophets of Yahweh (YHVH). In the next verse, Scripture will reveal that God sees it as kibbud halev, simple stubbornness.

With each subsequent plague, God ups the ante. The first plague of water turning to blood is duplicated by Pharaoh's magicians. In Pharaoh's mind the ground rests on power and it's a tie. By stopping the plague of the frogs at a time of Pharaoh's choosing, God shows himself to be a God not only of power, but of precision. Pharaoh's Egyptian gods are capricious and random. In one overwhelmingly clear show, God reveals that he is both all-powerful AND precise. The plagues of gnats cannot be duplicated by Pharaoh's team and once again God demonstrates His power over all Egyptian gods. Yet Pharaoh, still believing he is in a power struggle chizuk halev's (courages) himself. In the fourth plague (known as either flies or wild animals) God not only says when, but where he will afflict the land. This level of precision is simply unknown in Pharaoh's world. As Pharaoh continues to strengthen his heart, God unleashed the plague of killing livestock. Yet this time God dictates the time, the place, and the ownership of the affected animals. This is an overwhelming show of godship in the ancient world. Pharaoh's only concern was to verify the precision of YHVH, while concluding with kibbud halev (stubborning) his heart. In the sixth plague of boils, God even takes out Pharaoh's magicians. No one can stand to support Pharaoh; he is all alone. Apparently this broke Pharaoh and God steps in to chizuk halev (courage) Pharaoh's heart. This hardening is often looked at as God forcing His will on Pharaoh. The opposite is true. God simply strengthens Pharaoh's heart to help him stay true to his own desire. 

For the next plague, God makes clear to Moses that he is going hard after Pharaoh's heart (9:15, "so that you [Pharaoh] may know that there is none like me in all the earth"). When the seventh plague of hail, a supernatural mixture of fire and ice, hits Pharaoh crosses a line and makes the fatal decision to both kibbud halev (stubborn) his denial of the lordship of YHVH and chizuk halev (courage) his position. He courages his own stubbornness. In verse 27 Pharaoh finally gets it. YHVH is not one of many gods. He is THE God. He is Father; He creates and parents. Like any parent He deserves gratitude and love. He demands justice. For the 1st time Pharaoh sees the contest in terms of morality, not power. No longer "Might makes right, but "Right makes might"! Yet by verse 34 we see his willful and conscious choice to spit in the face of the one he knows to be creator God. Pharaoh is incorrigible. 

This is where it shifts to Plan C. God will have his way despite Pharaoh. God hardens (chizuk halev) Pharaoh's heart and announces a new goal: the Israelites will KNOW He is God. In the Hebrew, God states in 10:2 that he will now "play with" Pharaoh, seeing as consent will never come. Chilling. In verse 3, God calls Pharaoh His "slave," intentionally pushing Pharaoh's last button. God knows this will cause Pharaoh, of his own free will, to retreat into his fortress of stubbornness. Pharaoh's grip on power is slipping as his servants beg him to call back Moses and Aaron to repent. Yet Moses twists the knife, allowing Pharaoh no face-saving way out, and contrasts the joy they anticipate in their feast to the Lord with Pharaohs total devastation. God used the completely free-will choice Pharaoh made to cling to his pride to harden his heart. Pharaoh thinks he is "winning" by denying God the recognition Pharaoh knows He deserves. 

As the final plague, the death of the firstborn approaches, Israel celebrates the first Passover. This is the night they choose to become the bechor. They will slaughter an animal considered a god by the Egyptians and very publicly paint their door frame with the blood. There is no turning back. The blood is not for identifying whose house to "pass over;" God has already shown Himself more than capable of preserving His people. The blood is the very public acceptance of God's offer. This night, as they pass through a bloody opening, they will be "born again" as God's first born.

Although this part of the book fascinated me, the second half opens another door to understanding this text. As the Israelites prepare to depart, Ex. 14:4 states, "I will get glory over Pharaoh." Does the text indicated God will showboat in his victory. No. Rather Fohrman reminds the reader of an earlier Pharaoh and an earlier trek by the Israelites. He returns to the story of Joseph hundreds of years earlier. At the time of his brothers' betrayal, Joseph may have wondered why his father never came to rescue him. He had no idea that his father thought him dead and mourned for years over the loss. By the time Joseph is reunited with his family, he has made a close connection with his Pharaoh and it stands to reason that Jacob may have worried Joseph no longer considered him his father. When Jacob blesses Joseph's sons and calls them his very own, just before his death, he requests that Joseph carry his body back to the Promised Land. This is a tough ask as Joseph will have to basically declare his loyalty to his own family over his adopted Egyptian father. But Joseph does it, and the kind and loving Pharaoh, along with the whole nation, not only grieves the death of Jacob, he sends Joseph off with a retinue of soldiers and singers all praising the dead patriarch, the father. Then Joseph and his family return.

Fohrman posits that Plan A involved much the same thing. God asks Pharaoh to allow his people three days in the desert in order to see if Pharaoh was made of the same stuff as his ancestor (of course God knew and foretold from the beginning that Pharaoh would fail). Since ultimately God shifted into (what looks like from our perspective) Plan C, God would still have His glorious send-off. The army and the horses would still accompany the Israelites, but this time under duress. God would get his due. Only this time the Israelites did not return. Pharaoh lost everything. His intentional refusal to worship the God who created him led to his downfall. 

Since God's original plan that Pharaoh would acknowledge His Lordship and proclaim Him to the world did not take place, Fohrman suggests there is still work to do. It is now our job to do what Pharaoh failed to do: Proclaim the name of the Lord.

Beartown by Fredrik Backman

Our latest book club genre is "Books in translation." My pick was The Count of Monte Cristo. We voted on Beartown by Fredrik Backman instead.

It's staccato prose and subject, a dying, desolate, and desperately cold hockey town, proved an initial obstacle to me. But once I got over that, the story really began to suck me in. I don't think I've had a book grab ahold of me like this in a while. All the characters were multi-dimensional. They all had their flaws and virtues. Just when I was ready to write off a character as unredeemable, he would surprise me. But the actual plot a bit to get going. 

But once the central action took place, it was non-stop.

Except that what appeared to be the central action was not. The author keeps us up-to-date on the happenings of a secondary character, Benji, who appears to move "off-screen" as the plot really takes shape. In those glimpses, we see hints that this boy is a closeted gay student. But that is a distraction to the gripping story the town is facing. 

Somehow the author manages to pull out a somewhat satisfying end. No one gets everything they want, but all get some satisfaction. That's the point we shift the focus back to Benji and his coach's discovery of the young man's sexual attraction to males. Suddenly the story becomes about acceptance and the appalling lack of sympathy the coach and players have displayed when it comes to same-sex attraction. The big takeaway seems to be, "Don't be a bigot to gay people." 

This "moral of the story" left a bad taste in my mouth. Obviously, as Christians, we are called to love all people and treat all with dignity and respect. Acceptance of that bent is another story. But just as a matter of story-telling, the ending felt jarring. While one really big and intractable story is seemingly the focus, Backman pulls a bait-and-switch and seems to say, "And by the way, while I got you hooked on one compelling story, I'm going to use this time to shame the anti-gay bigots." 

Anyways, I wouldn't recommend it. And I'm leery of reading his other novels. I don't need to be that invested to have the rug pulled out from under me. 

It's really a shame.

The Discarded Image by C.S. Lewis

Having read many of C.S. Lewis' books, and considering him one of my favorite thinkers, I decided to tackle, The Discarded Image. I think I probably bit off more than I could chew. I blame my own meager education.

Lewis is making the point that the medievals had a full and coherent "model" of the world and from it grew all we know of it and the subsequent Renaissance. Lewis begins by describing the medieval man as, "not a dreamer nor a wanderer. He was an organizer, a codifier, a builder of systems. He wanted 'place for everything and everything in the right place.' Distinction, definition, tabulation were his delight" (10). 

Unfortunately, while I yield to better minds who claim great reverence for this work, I got lost time and again. 

I should probably read it again in twenty years. After I finish my "List of Great Books to Read Before I Die."