Author: rtrube54

Review: The Power of Us

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

The Power of Us, Jay J. Van Bavel, PhD, and Dominic J. Packer, PhD. New York: Little, Brown Spark, 2021.

Summary: How the groups of which we are a part help shape our identity, how this can lead to personal change, and understanding both how these identities may divide and unite us.

We tend to think of our identities as a fairly stable thing. Actually our identities change in subtle and sometimes dramatic ways depending on our social context and the groups to which we belong. The self I reveal with my colleagues may be different than what my neighbors see, or the people in particular interest or cultural groups in which I participate. It is not so much that we are chameleons but that we contain multiple ways of identifying ourselves–father, home owner, Christian, online ministry director, singer, aspiring artist and writer, bibliophile, vinyl music collector, Ohio State Buckeye fan, and more, in my case.

The authors of this work contend for the importance of understanding how our shared social identities shape us and how these might be harnessed for good or ill. They explore how our shared social identities help (or hinder) us in our perceptions as we try to make sense of the world. They shape and serve to reinforce our most important beliefs, who we listen to and do not listen to. They contend that social media holidays may help overcome echo chambers as do more nuanced information such as maps that are neither red or blue but proportionally shaded. If we are trying to bridge divides, it may be helpful to not lead with our political identities.

They explore why some identities matter more and how the identities we value shape our actions toward those who share them and those who do not and how we use various symbols from crosses to gestures (think O-H…I-O Buckeye fans) to find each other. The explore the issue of overcoming implicit racial bias, suggesting that new shared social identities may bridge old bias. When someone becomes “us” rather than “them” our perceptions may change. And awareness of our bias does not mean a label ought be applied to us but offers us the chance to use that self-awareness to shape our conscious behavior.

They describe the effectiveness of groups working in solidarity rather than individually and the power of non-violence in winning the support of neutrals and opponents. They consider the phenomenon of “groupthink” and how important opportunities for dissent are in group effectiveness. And they discuss the effective leaders who understand the power of “us” and foster a sense of shared identity. They also talk about how malevolent leaders may harness the same power for ill as they nurture a shared sense of grievance against a perceived enemy.

They conclude by considering how the matter of shared social identities could be important for the future of our democracies as we address inequality and climate change. As others have commented, we may be at a critical inflection point and how we harness the power of identity in these challenging times may make all the difference in what kind of country we become.

This work is important in making the point of the power of social identity. The authors help us to understand both how social identities may divide us and the steps we may take to begin to bridge those divides. For me, it raises questions about why, among Christians, shared social identity around American greatness is far more compelling than shared identity with fellow believers of many nations in pursuing the global purpose of the God of John 3:16 who “so loved the world” and what may be done to change that.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Review: Death at the Bar

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Death at the Bar (Roderick Alleyn #9), Ngaio Marsh. New York: Felony & Mayhem Press, 2013 (first published in 1940).

Summary: A holiday at a secluded seaside inn, and a challenge at darts ends up in murder from prussic acid (cyanide).

Three friends return to the remote seaside village of Ottercombe for a holiday. Luke Watchman is a renowned barrister, his cousin Sebastian Parish, a well-known actor, and Norman Cubitt, an accomplished artist who is doing Sebastian’s portrait. They stay at The Feathers, an inn with a pub operated by Abel Pomeroy and his son Will, who is active in a local communist cell with Decima Moore, a stunning local farmer’s daughter returned from Oxford who Will hopes to marry, and Bob Legge, an older gentleman with a mysterious background who already is secretary and treasurer for the group. Legge lives at The Feathers. Also staying at the Feathers is the Hon. Violet Darragh, who hangs about doing amateurish water color sketches while paying particular attention to Legge.

Things start off badly between Watchman and Legge. They have a fender-bender resulting from Legge charging into a blind intersection. The gentlemen extricate their cars, which were not damaged, only to discover on arrival that they are both staying at Feathers. It’s clear from an encounter the first night that they don’t like each other, and Watchman expects he’s seen him before. Legge has a stellar hand at darts, defeating Watchman, and challenging him to a trick where Legge will outline a hand on the dartboard with darts. Watchman declines.

The next day starts benignly enough with Cubitt off painting Sebastian’s portrait. Violet paints nearby. Over a rise Watchman encounters Decima Moore and we learn they’d had a fling on a previous visit by Watchman. Now she wants nothing more to do with him and he forces himself on her only to be repulsed as the painter come over the rise. The weather turns ill that night and Legge can’t make an appointment in nearby Illington because the tunnel into Ottercombe, its only access is impassable. So they are all in the bar. Pomeroy opens a special brandy for the guests, who have already drunk freely. Legge resumes his dart challenge, Watchman takes it up. Abel breaks out a new set of darts to which Legge approves.

The fourth dart pierces one of Watchman’s fingers. He turns pale, sits down. He is averse to blood and his friends chalk it up to that. Abel dresses the wound with iodine, but Watchman worsens. Someone suggests brandy, which Decima pours into Watchman’s empty glass. He barely takes any, saying “poison” through clenched teeth, knocking the glass away in a spasm-like motion. Just then the lights went out amid the storm, things are hectic with broken glass everywhere. When the lights come back on, Watchman is dead.

The local police do a credible investigation of the scene. The dart is found to have traces of prussic acid (cyanide) on the tip. Abel Pomeroy, who had bought prussic acid to kill rats is muttered against by the locals for not securing it. He goes to Scotland Yard to clear his reputation, sees Alleyn, who consults with the locals and is asked in, along with his fellow investigator, Fox. Attention is focused on Legge, but it becomes clear that he could not have put cyanide on the darts before throwing them. Nor was the brandy nor the glass tainted. But lethal levels of cyanide were found in Watchman’s blood. How was he poisoned? And who did it? Both Parrish, who is in financial straits and Cubitt stood to inherit from Watchman. It is clear Decima disliked him. Will was aware of the affair from the previous year. And Legge turns out to have been part of a case prosecuted by Watchman under the name Montague Thringle, taking the fall for a partner, perhaps unjustly.

Alleyn’s challenge is to sort all this out when virtually no one wants to cooperate. Legge is pathologically afraid of the police. And then an attempt is made to poison him and Fox, with Fox getting very ill.

I really enjoyed this story for the delightful cast of characters (Violet Darragh turns out to be quite interesting!), the rustic inn, and the unique seaside setting with its difficult to navigate tunnel that foreshadowed the twisty plot of this story. I found myself surprised at the end by who the murderer was–I had been thinking “anyone but this person.” A very satisfying read!

Review: Reading Black Books

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Reading Black Books, Claude Atcho. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2022.

Summary: Theological reflections on ten key pieces of Black literature.

A number of books have been written about reading diverse literature, for example, the literature of the Black community, to gain understanding and empathy for that experience. Reading Black Books does that and more. Claude Atcho considers a variety of key works of Black literature from a theological perspective, focusing on one major theme for each work. He considers this not only edifying, but also offering insights into our theological “blind spots” and deficiencies. Particularly, he believes this reading can lead to a more whole and just faith. He also warns that such reading may not be easy. Black literature reflects the trauma of the Black experience, often in all of its rawness.

The collection opens with considering the theme of the image of God in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man. He then moves to the nature of sin in Richard Wright’s Native Son, the story of Bigger Thomas, who begins by killing a rat and ends up committing multiple murders. Wright’s work explores both the personal and systemic aspects of sin. James Baldwin’s Go Tell It on the Mountain considers God and Gabriel’s toxic faith lacking in God’s redemptive love. Countee Cullen, in his poems “Christ Recrucified” and “The Black Christ” draws the connection later drawn by James Cone between the cross and the lynching tree, and the powerful connection that Christ’s cross has for many Blacks. Salvation is the theme of his consideration of Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain. For Atcho, it presents a stifled liberation, more dependent on Moses than the liberating work of God.

Nella Larsen’s Passing, serves as a lens for considering racism through the phenomenon of “passing” and Clare’s decision to “pass” to attain an upper class lifestyle. In Beloved, by Toni Morrison, Atcho considers the healing and memory, the issue of racial trauma through the story of the very unfriendly ghost of Beloved. W. E. B DuBois’s, “The Litany of Atlanta” considers something alien to much of white experience–lament–the sense of loss, the absence of God, confronting God, being formed in lament, and dealing with pain through the cross. A second Richard Wright story, The Man Who Lived Underground serves as a reflection on justice as we encounter the injustices faced by model Black citizen Fred Daniels who is unjustly arrested for a crime he didn’t commit, escapes custody and hides in the sewer system. Finally, Margaret Walker’s “For My People” reflects on the meaning of hope in a communal setting.

Each chapter combines critical consideration and theological reflection. Having not read a number of the works commended by Atcho, I can say his treatment whetted my appetite for reading these works. This book serves both as a basic reading list for seminal works of Black literature and a rich theological reflection on those works. Ideally, one would read this work in conjunction with the books and verse that serve as the focus of each chapter, perhaps for a course like “Reading Black Books with the Eyes of Faith” or a book group of Christians eager to grow in theologically-informed reading of Black works. To aid in this, the book includes discussion questions for each chapter/work. Now to go and buy/borrow the books in this book!

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through LibraryThing’s Early Reviewer Program.

Review: American Heritage History of the Confident Years

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

American Heritage History of the Confident Years, Francis Russell. New York: New Word City, 2016 (originally published in 1969).

Summary: A survey of American history during the period between the Civil War and World War 1, 1866-1914.

For many of us it is the period of American history about which we know the least. It was a period of mostly undistinguished presidents, one of whom escaped a conviction of impeachment by a single vote. But it was also a time during which the United States truly became a global power, setting the stage for its role in the first World War. It was the period of Reconstruction, and the dashing of new found hopes of African-Americans. It was the time of the rise of industrial tycoons and the shift of the economy from rural farms to factories and cities. It was the time when our modern two-party system solidified. Toward the end, it was the time when America’s dreams of empire found expression in a war with Spain resulting in the acquisition of Puerto Rico and the Philippines. A growing navy was accompanied by a canal across Panama. The period came to a close with the rise of one of the country’s most dynamic presidents followed by one of its least-inspiring.

In the latter part of the Twentieth century, American Heritage published a collection of histories covering the different periods of American history, and significant aspects of world history. More recently, these works have been re-released in digital form. This volume offers in a highly readable form a survey of the history of the United States between 1866 through 1914.

The period begins with Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson. We get a portrait of an unlikable individual who tended not to listen to others but was dedicated to his own ideas of what it meant to uphold the Constitution and barely escaped a conviction of impeachment. He’s followed by U. S. Grant, one of the most popular presidents whose presidency was marked by high ideals, and low morals. It wasn’t Grant but those around him. Then Rutherford B. Hayes makes the electoral deal that gives him the presidency but spells the end of Reconstruction. We find ourselves wondering what James Garfield would have accomplished had not an assassin’s bullet stopped him after just months in office. His successor Chester Arthur surprised those who despaired with his solid performance and resistance of the New York machine. Then we witness the only president to win two terms, but not consecutively, Grover Cleveland, who gives way to Benjamin Harrison for four years.

While this period marks the rise of rail interests, the industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, and the monopolists like Rockefeller, we witness a succession of one term presidents. Then along comes William McKinley, who seems to be on the way to one more of those presidencies until backed into the Spanish-American war, a one-sided conflict that suddenly made McKinley the president of an imperial power, until once more, early in his second term, an assassin’s bullet ended his solid presidency. And so we get Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt, who terrified many but turned out to be a great reformer and trustbuster and furthered American power in building a canal across Panama. Then he passed the torched to the trusted friend who really wanted to be Chief Justice rather than Commander in Chief, William Howard Taft. What follows is the sad tale of Roosevelt’s failed attempt to fill the vacuum of his former friend’s lackluster leadership, opening the way to Woodrow Wilson.

Along the way, this history traces the economic ups and downs, the debates about gold standards and silver, and the populism of William Jennings Bryant, the preacher politician who protested a government who would crucify its people on a “cross of gold.”

While historians might dispute some of the particulars, this work offers a great introductory survey that sets various events in their larger context and introduces us to the parade of figure who made this history. I was most impressed with how radically the country was transformed during this time, expanding coast to coast, laying the groundwork for the great power it would become through two global wars.

Review: Calvinism for a Secular Age

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Calvinism for a Secular Age, Jessica R. Joustra and Robert J. Joustra, eds. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2022.

Summary: A collection of contributions considering Abraham Kuyper’s Stone Lectures of 1898 at Princeton and both their flaws and relevance for our contemporary context.

In 1898, Reformed theologian, public scholar and politician Abraham Kuyper was asked to give the Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary, the beginning of an American tour. In six lectures, Kuyper set forth a summary of his formulation of Reformed thought, often referred to as neo-Calvinism, with the hope of breathing fresh life into Reformed thinking in American circles. In the process, he asserted the sovereignty of God in every sphere of life, introducing the concept of “sphere sovereignty” into the Reformed lexicon.

Most lecture series of this sort survive only in library or online archives. This is one of the great exceptions. Since 1931, Lectures on Calvinism has been continuously published by Eerdmans. It represents the most accessible English summary of Kuyper’s thought, indeed until recently, one of the only readily available works of Kuyper available in English. It has inspired Christian thinking about the relevance of Christian faith in every aspect of life, including science, the arts, and political life. And it has been the source of angst in an age affirming racial equality for its deprecatory remarks about racial groups other than white Europeans, and sadly used to support apartheid and other racist practices.

This volume is an effort of a number of Kuyper scholars to assess the relevance of Kuyper in our present time, engaging both the positive contributions and criticisms of his work. The contributions are organized around the six lectures plus two essays on Kuyper and race, and the translation work involved in the English text of the lectures. Each of the lecture essays are organized around what Kuyper said, what Kuyperians did, and what we should do. After the introduction by Robert J. Joustra, covering some of the material above, the essays in this book include:

Kuyper and Life-Systems, Richard J. Mouw. Mouw discusses Kuyper’s presentation of Calvinism as a “life system” centering on how we relate to God, to our fellow humans, and the larger world in which we find ourselves. He discusses the ways the Reformed community appropriated these ideas in academic institutions. He also addresses the idea of “worldview” and advocates active “worldviewing” rather than the static notion of having a worldview.

Kuyper and Religion, James Eglinton. The essay is organized around four questions Kuyper addressed in his second lecture: 1) Who is religion about? 2) Must all people be religious? 3) Is religion only about matters of the heart, or morals? 4) Can religion be a positive force for good in the world? He notes the distinctive answers Calvinism offers for these questions, the challenge of Calvinists to move beyond separatism and division, and the sadly irreligious character of most contemporary evangelicals.

Kuyper and Politics, Jonathan Chaplin. Kuyper’s ideas of constitutional pluralism are discussed and introduces Kuyper’s ideas of sphere sovereignty, differentiating state, society, and the church. This idea argues for generally protecting each of the spheres from intrusion by the other while recognizing the sovereignty of God and the engagement of Christians in all of these. He notes that Kuyper envisioned Christian parity but not privilege in the public square, a plural public square, not a neutral one. He notes the need in our contemporary context for a contextual pluralism that addresses racial and socioeconomic status.

Kuyper and Science, Deborah B. Haarsma. Kuyper addressed both the delightful calling to study God’s handiwork, and the ways in which Christian and atheist-materialist worldviews affect the study of science. Kuyper affirmed the idea of no conflict between faith and science and that the Christian need not set aside one’s faith in the laboratory. Haarsma particularly addresses the efforts of Christians historically to address science and faith, particularly evolution, and the needs at present to take this conversation beyond the Christian college context, to address ethics, and how both Kuyper and contemporary Kuyperians address evolution.

Kuyper and Art, Adrienne Dengerink Chaplin. Kuyper addressed three questions: 1) why was Calvinism not allowed to develop an art style of its own? 2) what implications does the lack of Calvinist art style have for understanding the nature of art? 3) what has Calvinism done in practice for the advancement of art. She focuses on Rookmaaker’s critique of modern art and ideas of beauty and the more positive art and aesthetic of Calvin Seerveld. And she critiques the lack of evidence for Kuyper’s ideas about Dutch painting, the conflict between his ideas about common grace and antithesis, where he opposes Christians and non-believer, and the aesthetic emphasizing beauty.

Kuyper and the Future, Bruce Ashford. Ashford outlines Kuyper’s call to action of a vibrant Calvinism amid the malaise of modernity and the ineffectual engagement of modern Christians. By and large, the cultural conditions and the church’s response have continued to decline. Ashford believes that Kuyper’s Calvinism still offers robust resources, awaiting the awakening and empowering work of God.

Kuyper and Race, Vincent Bacote. After outlining Kuyper’s problematic statements, he discusses three responses that have been made: 1) critique and rejection, 2) critique based in history, particularly Kuyper’s embrace of European race theory, and 3) critiques tied to theological themes, namely common grace allowed for “lower peoples.” Bacote believes that all that can be done is to affirm what is useful in Kuyper’s general thought while facing his failings in this area. He believes a neo-Kuyperian perspectivalism may offer the best approach to the multi-cultural glory of the church from every nation.

Lost in Translation, George Harinck. Kuyper gave his lectures in English. Given his lacks as an English speaker, how did the English manuscript of his lectures get written. Harinck disputes the traditional account of Benjamin Warfield that it was translated by a team who received the manuscript ten days before the lectures.

Jessica R. Joustra concludes the book with reflections on the reception of the lectures then and now, proposing that the vigorous assertion of God’s sovereignty over all of life remains important to the contemporary malaise of the western church but also that this needs to be coupled with piety of Kuyper reflected in his Near Unto God.

I would recommend picking up a copy of Lectures on Calvinism to read with this work. Kuyper offered one of the best articulations of Christian engagement in every aspect of life that is out there, even for his evident faults. It serves as the inspiration for many contemporary Christians who are both thoughtful and active in various spheres, as evident in the bibliographies at the end of each chapter. This work is a helpful companion. Get them both!

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Growing Up in Working Class Youngstown — Ella Kerber (Resch) Perrin

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments
Washington Evening Star, March16, 1930. Screen capture from Library of Congress

Edith Hamilton was not the only amazing newspaper woman that wrote for the Youngstown Vindicator. And like Esther Hamilton, Ella Kerber came from nearby New Castle, descended from German immigrants who arrived during the Civil War. She joined the staff of the Youngstown Vindicator in 1918. In 1922, she was acclaimed at the Ohio Newspaper Woman’s Association Convention in Columbus as the only woman court reporter in the state. She was known for her ability to scoop other reporters and was on a first name basis with politicians and other national figures across the country.

In 1926, she was honored by the Youngstown Police Department for raising the money to provide every policeman with a $5000 paid up life insurance, raised through amateur shows. I wonder if this is where Esther Hamilton came up with her idea for her Christmas fund-raisers. She lead efforts to establish the Youngstown Little Theater which eventually became the Youngstown Playhouse.

However, there was one event for which she was probably the most famous. She was the first newspaper woman to go to jail to protect the confidentiality of a source. In 1930, Irene Schroeder was on trial for the murder of a highway patrolman in New Castle. Kerber had provided “The Story of Irene Schroeder” to newspapers across the country, which was being published serially during the trial. She refused to testify as to the source of the story, and spent 52 hours in a New Castle jail cited with contempt of court. Because of some quirks in the law, she was unable to obtain bail. One newspaper account said, “She appeared to be unconcerned as she was escorted to a cell in the county jail.”

Also like Esther Hamilton, she had a long career, stretching from 1918 into the 1970’s. Along the way, she was a city council candidate for Youngstown’s Fifth Ward and active in Republican party affairs. In later years for papers in Warren, Boardman, and Austintown as well as doing stints in radio in Charleston and Huntington, West Virginia.

I wonder what it was like around the newsroom of the Vindicator when both Esther and Ella were there. I don’t how long Kerber was around after the Telegram merged with the Vindicator in 1936 and Hamilton joined the paper. My hunch is that the paper wasn’t big enough for both of them, though I do not know the reason Ella Kerber moved on. What I do know is that she was a pathbreaker, showing that women could do all men could do as reporters, covering courts, scooping stories, and even going to jail to protect sources. She’s one I’d love to know a lot more about.

To read other posts in the Growing Up in Working Class Youngstown series, just click “On Youngstown.” Enjoy!

Review: Travels with Charley in Search of America

/ rtrube54 / 4 Comments

Travels with Charley: In Search of America, John Steinbeck. New York: Penguin Classics, 2012 (originally published in 1962).

Summary: John Steinbeck’s memoir of his 1960 roadtrip in his truck/camper Rocinante with his French poodle Charley.

It was 1960. Richard Nixon and John Kennedy were in a race for president. Highways from town to town were being replaced by high speed Interstate highways. The South was in deep conflict over desegregation. Mass media was expanding its impact on the culture. And John Steinbeck was aging. His son, Thom, said Steinbeck knew he had the heart condition from which he would die in 1968. And he wanted to see the America that had been the backdrop of his stories one more time,

So he bought a 3/4 ton truck on which a custom camper top was installed with bed, stove, lights, and facilities and dubbed his vehicle “Rocinante,” after Don Quixote’s mount. One wonders if he thought this journey quixotic in nature. He sets out from New York City north to Maine, across New England and New York, along the south of the Great Lakes through the Midwest, across the northern states all the way to Washington, down to California including revisiting his old stomping ground, trekking across the Southwest, through Texas, stopping in New Orleans during a desegregation crisis which he witnesses, across the South, up through Virginia, and New Jersey and back home.

Accompanying him is his faithful old companion, his ten year old French poodle, Charley, who would go “Ffft” when Steinbeck was too slow to take him out. One of the most endearing parts of this work was the bond between them, often evoking some of the strongest emotions Steinbeck has throughout–contempt for the government bureaucracy that wouldn’t allow them to cut through Canada without Charley’s inoculation papers, surprise at Charley’s fierceness when they spot grizzlies, anger at a veterinarian whose indifference to Charley’s bladder problems, frustration at Charley’s lack of interest in the greatest of the redwoods, and warm affection for another vet who cared for his old dog. As the title suggests, Charley is perhaps the main character in this memoir besides Steinbeck himself.

Steinbeck remarks the changes that have occurred throughout the country. He speaks of the massive growth of the cities, which he tries generally to avoid (one exception is Minneapolis, and the nuclear evacuation route he followed, reflecting on the traffic jams that would have made this route worthless). He describes listening to jukeboxes, where the same songs were #1 wherever you went, a harbinger of the growth of mass culture. He remarks on the odd phenomenon of the reticence of people to talk about the presidential election.

Christian Smith has described American religion as “moral therapeutic deism.” Steinbeck noted this even in the 1960’s as he traveled across the country, contrasting what he found in one Vermont church with what he found elsewhere:

“For some years now God has been a pal to us, practicing togetherness, and that causes the same emptiness a father does playing softball with his son. But this Vermont God cared enough about me to go to a lot of trouble kicking the hell out of me. He put my sins in a new perspective…I wasn’t a a naughty child but a first rate sinner, and I was going to catch it” (p. 61).

Steinbeck said he felt so revived he put $5 in the offering plate and commented of the pastor: “He forged a religion designed to last, not predigested obsolescence.”

These larger observations of society alternate with personal encounters, many at breakfast counters across the country, taciturn in New England and more voluble as he entered the Midwest. Then there is the very human encounter with a property manager who informed Steinbeck that he was trespassing, and as they talk and share some coffee with something added, the manager shows him a place to park and takes him fishing. Like so many, they saw Steinbeck’s camper, and wanted to be him.

In the end, Steinbeck wanted to get home. Something seemed to change once he reached California. Spotting coyotes he could have easily taken down and done others a favor, he cannot. He witnesses the viciousness of white women (the cheerladies) when a little black girl tries to integrate a school in Louisiana. Encounters with two hitchhikers, one white, one black underscore the deep racial divide of the time. Strikingly, the black man fears him, and gets out before reaching his destination, preferring walking to fear.

Getting lost, being misdirected and directed runs through the narrative. Even back in New York City, he requires directions from a policeman to make it home. One senses that it is a lost man who is in search of America with his dog. And what did he find? In his own words, “I do know this–the big and mysterious America is bigger than I thought. And more mysterious.”

I have to admit, the older I get, the more I find myself in agreement with Steinbeck. All the things I thought I knew about the country, I know no longer. What I thought I knew has become mysterious. And I find myself longing more and more for people like that Vermont preacher. Someone needs to kick the hell out of us.

Review: Bird By Bird

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Bird By Bird, Anne Lamott. New York: Anchor Books, 1994.

Summary: Anne Lamott’s advice to her writing students, basically, “almost every single thing I know about writing.”

Anne Lamott grew up around a father who wrote. She learned, along with prisoners he taught, to put a little down on a piece of paper every day, and to read lots of great books and plays and that we all have a lot in us to share. She started doing this as a schoolgirl and never stopped. Her second grade teacher read a poem she wrote about John Glenn and she won an award. She’d sit with her dad and write poems. Eventually she learned that she was good at stories and funny. She wrote sophomoric material as a sophomore but she heeded her dad’s counsel: “Do it every day for a while. Do it as you would do scales on a piano. Do it by prearrangement with yourself. Do it as a debt of honor. And make a commitment to finishing things.” It might be that this is some of the best writing advice in a book chock full of Lamott’s earthy, practical, and funny advice.

Basically, according to Lamott, if you want to be a writer, you need to write. In the first part, she talks about basic steps to getting started. If nothing else, write about your childhood–everything you can remember and sit down and do it at the same time every day–struggling with the voices that say you can’t do this. One of her exercises is to write about school lunches–we’ve all got those memories. It’s not time yet to think about agents and publishing. It’s time to work on writing. She advises starting with short assignments, what you can see through a “one inch picture frame.” This is where “bird by bird” comes from. When her brother was stymied by a report on birds, her father told him, “Bird by bird, buddy. Just take it bird by bird.” She also advises writing without reining yourself in, which means “shitty first drafts” (a phrase that recurs more than a few times–Lamott’s way of keeping it real). Perfectionism is the enemy, like a muscle cramp that keeps us from moving freely.

For writing fiction, she advises getting to know your characters and the plot will emerge. Avoid plot devices and shortcuts that lose your reader’s trust. Write dialogue by which your characters are recognizable and realize that writing dialect is hard writing and hard on readers. She describes the moment she broke down when her editor told her her book didn’t work, and the meeting the next day where she made the case for her book, told him all the stuff she’d forgotten to put down, the thoughts she had about how she could solve the problems in the plot. He said “thank you” and asked her to write that book, beginning with a chapter by chapter plot treatment of what she had just told him. It became her greatest novel. And she talks about knowing when you are done.

She talks about the writing frame of mind–attentiveness, understanding the moral point of view of a piece, learning to rely on intuition, and learning to breathe and align ourselves with the work rather than listening to the station in our heads–KFKD. She offers tips of things along the way, from carrying index cards to scribble down things we may need in a story–a line of dialogue, a memory recalled, a simple occurrence in the grocery story–calling around to find someone who knows what the wire thing on top of a champaign bottle is called, finding writing groups and those who read your drafts. For writing block, she suggests just trying to write one page of anything–even those childhood memories–and wait. She wraps up the book talking about publication, and what she calls “her last class” which not only has some funny advice about avoiding libel but a wonderful description of the pleasures of the writing life.

Lamott, as in all her books can be funny, profane, transcendent, and serious, sometimes within the space of a few sentences. Some of the most moving passages are those where she talks about her friend Pam, who died of cancer, and what Pam taught her about life and writing. She gives us a sense of that mysterious drive to write, because we can’t not write, the hard work and the great joys of writing. One also has the sense as you read Lamott, that writing opens one up to something bigger, the grandeur and tragedy, the serious and silly things, the morality and meaning of a life well-lived, and how we all fall short of it. And it all starts with short assignments, shitty first drafts, and bird by bird.

Review: The Psychology of Christian Nationalism

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

The Psychology of Christian Nationalism, Pamela Cooper-White. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2022.

Summary: A discussion of the rise of Christian nationalism in the United States, why people are drawn to it, and how to talk across the divide when one differs from those who embrace some form of Christian nationalism.

Beginning with the election of 2016, there has been a rise in what is termed “Christian nationalism,” fusing Christian hopes for national renewal with a movement setting out to restore “American greatness.” What is seen from within as a type of revival movement or a return to what is believed to have been lost to progressivism is perceived as a disturbing authoritarian and idolatrous movement with connections to white supremacism. What is more painful is that this movement divides families, friends, and churches, as well as the broader fabric of the nation. Deep differences with those close to us may lead to harsh words and estranged relationships.

What is this movement and why are people drawn to it? And how ought we (if we are able) to have conversations across these divides? These are the questions Pamela Cooper-White sets out to discuss in this book. She begins by discussing what Christian nationalism is, an overview of the history of its rise, and how this differs from patriotism. Cooper-White cites this definition: “Simply put, Christian nationalism is a cultural framework–a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems–that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life” (p. 13). She traces the rise of these ideas within white evangelicalism and the growing focus on “redeeming God’s chosen nation.” While patriotism is simply love for one’s country, “nationalism is the identification of that country with a historically dominant ethic, cultural, and/or religious group and a fierce loyalty to protecting that national identity” (p. 25).

Chapter two, the longest part of this work, focuses on why people are drawn in to Christian nationalist groups. Cooper-White traces this to our conscious desire to belong combined with a shared sense of purpose and values. She draws concerning parallels between Christian nationalist groups and tactics used by cults. She also delineates those shared values: sin as personal and not corporate, protecting white status and power, defending patriarchy, and gun rights. She also discusses unconscious motivations including groupthink, the power of leaders, especially narcissistic leaders, and trauma that leads to a “doer and done-to” polarity.

How then do we engage? Cooper-White suggests a triage:

  • Red light: STOP (at least here, at least for now)–talking with true believers. There are times when people are not open to conversation, or this is not a conversation that is good for us.
  • Yellow light: Tread lightly where we sense some openness. Often, the first step is to listen and show respect and curiosity.
  • Green light: Go deeper, gently, and wisely. Cooper-White goes deeper here, beginning with building and maintaining relationships, awareness of how new conflicts arouse old family dynamics, breathing, noticing our feelings, listening to understand more than speak, avoiding assumptions, making I statements, avoiding argumentation and debate, and admitting our own failings.

She also offers guidance where conversations threaten to become tense including awareness of power and social contexts, conducive and unconducive settings, and choosing our battles. Self-care, including channeling our energies into social activism may be helpful. We need to be aware that this is hard work.

The third chapter is one I found especially helpful, including the idea of triaging our conversations. Likewise, the definitional discussion of chapter one helps with understanding what it is we are talking about, and how we can love country without becoming nationalists, Christian or otherwise.

Chapter two on why people are drawn in was the one about which I felt conflicted. What I most agree with is the idea of group identity–how our affiliations do shape us. The description of values that draw people feels very much like an “outsider” perspective. I do not think this sufficiently reckons with the deep sense of offense many who would identify with these groups feel at being condescended to, marginalized, and treated as unenlightened yokels. Nor does it reckon with the genuine concerns about moral decline perceived by these groups. Even though outsiders perceive them as both enjoying a certain amount of white privilege and political influence, their felt and lived experience is very different. While some identify with Christ in these experiences and trust God to exalt when they are humbled and marginalized, others are drawn by strong figures who suggest they may take these matters into their own hands and take the country back. While there is much I would agree with in the author’s analysis, this felt a bit too much like the progressive version of the parallel echo chambers that divide us.

None of this should detract from the reality that Christian nationalism is a toxic movement. First of all, it idolizes both strong leaders and American greatness when God is greater. To the degree that it is allied with white supremacism, patriarchy and the abuse of women which is a scandal in evangelicalism, and the use of authoritarian means to accomplish its political ends, it is dangerous to the flourishing of a diverse, democratic society. The value of this work is both that it makes this clear while recognizing that people we care for have been drawn to this, people with whom we hope for continued relationships that change us all for good.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Review: How the World Really Works

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

How the World Really Works, Vaclav Smil. New York: Viking, 2022.

Summary: A scientific, data-based assessment of how our advanced technological global civilization has developed, the challenges we face, and what it realistically will take to address these challenges.

Can we get to “carbon zero” by 2050? Why has it been so hard to get everything from computer chips to PPE? Why didn’t the dire predictions of The Population Bomb come true? Vaclav Smil would maintain that to respond to these questions, we need to understand the science, the data, of how the world really works. And it is often the case in our public discussions, we have refused to take a hard look at the scientific realities and the technological possibilities.

Take the Population Bomb illustration for example. Back in 1968, Paul Ehrlich predicted massive deaths from famine resulting from overpopulation. At that time, the world population was 3.7 billion. Now it is over 8 billion, and no mammoth famines have occurred (yet). How could this be? It was the result of vastly increased grain yields resulting from hybrids and the intensive application of nitrogenous fertilizers manufactured with carbon-based fuels. Could we go back? Not easily–manure, the primary source of nitrogen before chemical fertilizers provides far less fertilizer, weighs far more and requires far more labor.

Or those shortages of chips and PPE. Facilitated by global supply chains, far-flung factories with lower wage scales, and container shipping, it was economically feasible to “offshore” manufacturing throughout the world. But is it wise, Smil asks, to manufacture 70 percent of rubber gloves in a single factory, or all our computer chips elsewhere? Manufacturing shutdowns and transport delays during the pandemic exposed this supply chain that all of us took for granted.

Smil challenges us to face the realities of modern life. Take our dependence on electric power. Apart from nuclear, carbon-fueled power plants offer the maximum of power-generating capability and reliability. Hydro, wind, and solar are both less efficient and reliable. And our increased energy usage offsets the gains we are making in renewables. Getting free of carbon-based power generation is not happening in places like China and India who are increasing their usage of such power.

Then there are what Smil calls “the four pillars of modern civilization”: cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia. Ammonia is what feeds the world in terms of those nitrogenous fertilizers. The lightweight durability and moldability of plastic makes it widely used in everything from water bottles to airframes, yet also troublesome as it breaks down and infiltrates our water, and our bodies. The world runs on concrete in our highways and buildings, yet it also deteriorates over time as witnessed in bridge and high-rise collapses. Likewise, steel is ubiquitous in our building, various utensils, our vehicles, our tools and more. It is very recyclable. The fundamental truth we need to face is that, at present, the manufacture of all of these are massively dependent on fossil fuels. As yet, no renewable power sources exist to manufacture these.

Smil assesses our environmental challenges. These do not come in terms of oxygen, food, and water, basic constituents of life but in terms of decarbonization. He argues that none of the “zero carbon” goals even begins to wrestle with the “four pillars” of modern life, nor the challenges of electricity generation globally. This doesn’t prevent him for arguing that we must do what we can, from reducing waste in food production to converting to cleaner forms of transport and reducing energy use (such as installing triple-paned windows, and reducing meat consumption. But that won’t get us anywhere close to carbon zero and he excoriates the magical thinking of so many public pronouncements without substantive changes.

Smil includes a chapter on understanding risk, which seemed a bit of a diversion from the other subjects in the book, but also connects to his basic theme of how the world works. He illustrates that many of the risks we fear are less than the ones to which we are daily exposed–for example the risk of dying at the hands of a foreign terrorist are infinitesimal to that of dying from domestic gun violence of various sorts and that often we do not make policies on the basis of rational factors.

His final chapter deals with understanding the future, the flaws in all our future predictions (again, remember The Population Bomb). The reality is that we are navigating a space that is somewhere between apocalypse and singularity. While the future is uncertain, understanding in realistic terms our past and our present helps us recognize one thing–our actions do matter.

This is a daunting book, both in terms of technical detail and its dose of hard empirical reality–a bucket of cold water drenching our idealistic dreams of a carbon-free world. Smil does not say we shouldn’t work toward these things. Instead, I hear him saying, “Let’s get real and talk about how we are going to get there and how long it will take and what that will mean.” He resists pessimism, but also points tellingly to the lack of little more than empty promises on the global stage. He wants us to stop thinking we can evacuate to other planets. We’re not going to terraform Mars. As a scientist, he wants us to focus on how modern life in the only world we have really works.