Introduction
Given the premise of this assignment “reviewing books”, I set out to craft a six course literary meal for you all. Now, as with any six course meal there is a course which if eaten in isolation would result in a deficient diet. Also, there may be some ingredients in any course which you might choose to leave out, but the chef thought it would add to the dish. That’s the chef’s prerogative of course. But as far as I can discern none of these books have poison in them, and where there are any deficiencies or errors I have sought to flag them for you. That said, I think these will be books worth reading if you’ve never read them before, and in the case of a few of them they are well worth re-reading several times over.
Hors d’oeuvre: The Fourth Turning is Here (Howe)
If you haven’t heard of the concept of the Fourth Turning, let me lay it out for you here. Now, from the outset I think it is important that we avoid turning Howe and Strauss’ rubric into a sort of generational enneagram. Too often we mistake insightful observation of the past for a crystal ball for the future. But Howe is cautious about not falling into the mistake of being overly wooden with their paradigm, “History is seasonal, but its outcomes are not foreordained.” This isn’t a statement about God’s sovereign decree, but rather a caution about our attempts to predict the future.
Empires and cultures have certainly ebb and flow, and in many respects they do so in predictable ways. After all, Solomon himself observed the repeated attempts of mankind to try to make block-headedness happen.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. – Ecc 1:9-11 KJV
Here is a basic sketch of the notion of the Four Turnings. History follows a cyclical pattern that lasts about as long as a long human lifetime; this can be referred to as a saeculum. The whole cycle can be subdivided into four periods or seasons lasting about 20-30yrs each. The first turning is when everything is bright and sunny, usually it is relatively peaceful and prosperous; the second turning is marked by a focus on the inner-life and spiritual renewal and awakening; the third turning begins the unravelling due to issues left unresolved in the previous periods; and the fourth turning is when it all comes to a head. Irreconcilable differences have to be reconciled somehow. Or in the words of one sharp-witted observer: “Anything that can’t go on forever, won’t.” I know…deep!
Howe recently published a sort of “You are Here” follow up to the original. Essentially, as anyone with firing neurons could tell you, we are in the thick of the crisis of the fourth turning. How it resolves is anyone’s guess. But if history is a guide, it will all be buttoned up one way or another by the early 2030s. So…buckle up.
However, one of the insights of their work is how each season produces a different archetypal generation: prophets, nomads, heroes, and artists. If you stack these up it looks like this:
1st Turning
Elder: Nomad
Midlife: Hero
Young Adulthood: Artist
Childhood: Prophet
2nd Turning
Elder: Hero
Midlife: Artist
Young Adulthood: Prophet
Childhood: Nomad
3rd Turning
Elder: Artist
Midlife: Prophet
Young Adulthood: Nomad
Childhood: Hero
4th Turning
Elder: Prophet
Midlife: Nomad
Young Adulthood: Hero
Childhood: Artist
When you apply that to our current moment, Boomers are entering elderhood, Gen-Xers are entering midlife, Millennials are in their young-adulthood phase, and the Zoomers are yet babes. Howe notes that there’s often an antipathy that forms between the generations in the 1st and 3rd position and in the 2nd and 4th position. The “Ok Boomer” mood of millennials is a particular example of this, and, to be fair, so is the dismissiveness of the Boomers’ “get a job”. The two things to watch as our 4th turning unfolds is whether Boomers really do settle into a Gandalfian figure of fiery wisdom. The second thing to be mindful of is that if Howe is right the Zoomers will have a tendency to value aesthetics. Here is where the church ought to be prepared with the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Christian worldview. Our architecture, music, literature, and artwork should aim at excellence. Nevertheless, we’re in the thick of the 4th turning, so buckle up and enjoy the ride.
Soup: American Nations (Woodyard)
One of the more prevalent myths about the US of A is that we are united. We all know that it isn’t true, and yet in every political speech we are reminded that we must “come together”, unite, work as one, etc. This presumes that the various states have a monolithic goal, and that our priorities can somehow find harmonic alignment.
Colin Woodard puts forward an excellent hypothesis that America is not a nation of red states or blue states, marked by conservatives versus liberals. Rather, we are a nation with eleven distinct nations, rooted in very distinct cultural values and aims. He shows how the various European migrations and settlements in the New World had wildly differing priorities and formed a smorgasbord of civilizations.
What is most interesting is his application of these “fault lines” to more modern elections/issues. The eleven nations he identifies can have their borders traced clearly after every election. His twitter feed is often full of maps of various issues or elections and, true to form, there are the several nations/blocs he identifies.
In short, the Puritans of New England shaped their modest, self-government, promised land culture, the Scots-Irish shaped a warlike ethos of individualism in Appalachia, the gentry of the Carolinas and Virginias aimed to recreate the traditional leisure-centered culture of the aristocratic English countryside, and the Spaniards left their legacy of communalism mixed with autocracy in Florida and the Southwest. After showing the formation of these and a few other cultures/nations, Woodard goes on to trace how they mingled (or not), allied or clashed with each other, and how they have set the landscape for current political and cultural battles.
At points Woodard whiffs, in my estimation, in fleshing out some aspects of the various nations. In particular, he falls victim to one of the classic caricatures of Puritans being folk who don’t like having any fun, and make it their business to make sure other don’t either (remember, they invented football and pies for goodness sake). Also, as is common, he doesn’t present some of the better aspects of the Deep South before and during the Civil War. He paints the Deep South in that time period largely in terms of their attachment to racism/slavery, with little “airtime” given to some of the other factors in play. The nature of his book necessitates plenty of generalizing, and on the whole, I think he generalizes with the best of ’em (for better or worse).
The main takeaway is that the US has never been a monolithic culture, and any attempt to do so will quickly discover the fault lines of our various “nations.” He notes that it is likely that by 2100 we will see a different border to the US than the present one, and he presciently mentions a global pandemic as a possible event which might result in a “redrawing” of the nation’s border through a break-up into smaller confederations.
Something that struck me (which Woodard doesn’t draw out as he is not writing this with a religious lens) is that while Yankeedom (i.e. Puritan Calvinists) set out to bring the Kingdom of God to earth (as we are called to do), this must never be divorced from the pure Gospel of Christ and Him crucified. Yankeedom went far astray when it thought it could shape a gloriously ordered culture merely by human will-power. It will never happen apart from evangelical faith in the Son of God.
There are plenty of valuable insights to be gleaned, and where I differ with Woodard on certain things he would likely point out that it is because he is from Yankee-dom and I’m a mutt of Greater Appalachia and Midlands who was raised in the Far West who wants a return to the glory days of Puritan Yankeedom. If you don’t understand any of that…then read the book.
Appetizer: Shadow of the Almighty (Elliot)
In the appetizer portion of our meal I’ve inserted a biography. First of all, I think biography, and especially those of godly men, ought to be in your regular reading diet. Second, I chose one that has shaped the trajectory of my life since before I could read. This book is Shadow of the Almighty by Elisabeth Elliot, and is her telling of the life and martyrdom of her husband Jim Elliot. When I was less than five years old, my parents took me to a reader’s theater at a local Bible college in Omaha, NE where they told Elliot’s story, largely based on this book. This story of sacrifice for the spread of the Gospel to heathen tribes set me on a path, even from a young age, of ministry and service to the Lord.
The other reason this book should be on your shelf is that for years Elisabeth Elliot served as perhaps the most prominent female voice in evangelical circles. Her no-nonsense biblicism is utterly delightful. She used her writing and radio broadcasts to exhort women to be feminine, submissive to their husbands (gasp), focussed on raising godly children, and earnest students of the Word. It’s even tastier when you realize that recent criticism of her is like burnt toast with a thick layer of Vegemite in comparison. To put it another way, read this book if you want to own the libs.
This book traces the story of Jim Elliot’s upbringing, time at Wheaton Bible College, call to mission work, his mission work in Ecuador, and the lead up to his death at the hands of the Auca tribesmen of Ecuador in January 1956. Jim Elliot represents the best of the fundamentalist movement of the early 1900s. Staunch. Evangelical. Manly. Biblical. Sacrificial.
Elisabeth takes extracts from Jim’s thorough and thoughtful journal entries and adds her own side of the experiences to retell this life. And oh, what a life it was. There is a real temptation in our own moment of secular globalism-run-amuck to perceive global missions as “left-wing coded.” But this is to let the enemies of God regulate the playing field. The life of Jim Elliot is unmistakable for two things. First, the power of the Gospel to save sinners from every nation, tribe, and tongue. Second, the faith-filled and sacrificial obedience of each believer to see that Great Commission achieved. It is the duty of the church in every age to hold steadfast to those two things: glorying in the cross and then taking up our cross. Jim embodied that life. Here is a sampling of that life in his own words:
“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” (1949)
“One treasure, a single eye, and a sole master.” (1948)
“God, I pray Thee, light these idle sticks of my life and may I burn for Thee. Consume my life, my God, for it is Thine. I seek not a long life, but a full one, like you, Lord Jesus.” (1948)
“Father, take my life, yea, my blood if Thou wilt, and consume it with Thine enveloping fire. I would not save it, for it is not mine to save. Have it Lord, have it all. Pour out my life as an oblation for the world. Blood is only of value as it flows before Thine altar.” (1948)
“Saturate me with the oil of the Spirit that I may be aflame. But flame is often short-lived. Canst thou bear this, my soul? Short life? In me there dwells the spirit of the Great Short-Lived, whose zeal for God’s house consumed Him. ‘Make me Thy fuel, Flame of God.'” (1948)
Salad: The Myth of Mental Illness (Szasz)
If you haven’t noticed, mental illness is a term which has given people the ability to get out from under culpability for their actions and behavior. Everything from the most deranged lunatic down to the fidgety three year old boy is blanketed, with an anxiety reducing weighted blanket, with the term mental illness. But is that an accurate term for the set of behaviors which we take to be downstream from something amiss in the individual’s brain?
Szasz’s project is akin to remodeling a house, and doing an impressive job of updating a house, but neglecting the crumbling foundation. In other words, he challenges the dominant position of psychiatrists, and for that we owe him gratitude. But he still builds upon the sand, and so we know that any such house will eventually collapse.
You may need to review some of Freud, Jung, etc. before diving in. You can get electricity from a nuclear power plant without having to personally dispose of the nuclear waste. Szasz first put forward his ideas in the 60s. He proposed that in our modern age the role of religion in addressing and caring for the misbehavior of those we might call the insane or mentally unsound had been replaced by the medicalization of not only the insane but every aspect of human behavior. Instead of priests, witch hunts, and holy water exorcisms, we now have bespectacled therapists hunting for childhood trauma to be driven out by the power of handfuls of pills.
His central premise is that “mental illness” has become one of the more dangerous terms to enter common usage. The term ought to be used merely metaphorically. As we can quite readily observe, this term has come to be used as a literal description. Instead of hysterics and misbehavior that must be “owned” and changed, we have taken all agency away from large swaths of the population and told them that nothing is their fault, you have an illness, and because we want all illnesses to be cured, here are some psychotropic drugs. Also…have my secretary get in touch with your insurance. It is interesting that he also proposes that the mentally unsound have learned to play the game and therapists have arisen to simply validate and continue the game. What those with afflictions of the mind need, he proposes is being taught to speak to themselves and stop playing the game of what I would call victimhood.
So then, 99.9% of the time you should hear the phrase “mental illness” as a metaphor. This bad, sinful, awkward, or socially inept behavior is like an illness (1 Ki. 8:38), but there is no test to ascribe the cause of this behavior to some bodily deficiency or malady.
Main Course: The History of the Work of Redemption (Edwards)
Edwards work in retelling the history of the world is severely underrated in Reformed circles. Edwards project is ambitious and his mind, not surprisingly, was up to the task. The goal was to write a “body of divinity” unlike any that had been written before: a history. He almost turned down becoming the president of Princeton in order to complete this project.
It is striking that Edwards, with as great an intellect as he had, designed to present a sum of doctrine in the form of story. He didn’t seek to persuade the mind, but to compel the affections with the glory of the story of Christ.
First, Christ is not merely anticipated in the OT, He is present in every episode and turning of the OT. Second, Edwards highlights for us the continuity of the Church through all ages of Redemptive history. Third, Satan is the enemy of church.
Now, as Edwards transitions from Scriptural record to historical record we see his historicism come lumbering to the microphone. While I would sit at odds with the venerable Edwards when it comes to preterism vs. historicism, he still proves to be imminently insightful in reading the story of history rightly. Just as he saw God’s faithfulness in preserving the church in the OT age, he likewise sees the epic tale of God’s providential hand on the steering wheel of history in the age of Christ’s reign.
How much he was hated, what abuses he suffered from the vilest of men; how great his sufferings, and how spiteful and contemptuous they were in offering him those abuses! How causeless and unreasonable were these abuses, how undeserving he was of them, yea how much deserving of the contrary, viz. of love, and honour, and good treatment at their hands! If we consider these things, no man ever met with a thousandth part of the provocation that Christ met with from men: and yet how meek was he under all! how composed and quiet his spirit! how far from being in a ruffle and tumult! When he was reviled, he reviled not again; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. No appearance was there of a revengeful spirit: on the contrary, what a spirit of forgiveness did he exhibit! so that he fervently and effectually prayed for their forgiveness, when they were in the highest act of provocation that ever they perpetrated, viz. nailing him to the cross: Luke xxiii. 34. “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And never did there appear such an instance of love to men. Christ’s love to men, especially in going through his last sufferings, and offering up his life and soul under those sufferings, which was his greatest act of love, was far beyond all parallel. There have been very remarkable manifestations of love in some of the saints, as in the apostle Paul, the apostle John, and others; but the love to men that Christ showed when on earth, as much exceeded the love of all other men, as the ocean exceeds a small stream. And it is to be observed, that all the virtues which appeared in Christ shone brightest in the close of his life, under the trials he met with then. Eminent virtue always shows brightest in the fire. Pure gold shows its purity chiefly in the furnace. It was chiefly under those trials which Christ underwent in the close of his life, that his love to God, his honour of God’s majesty, his regard to the honour of his law, his spirit of obedience, his humility, contempt of the world, his patience, meekness, and spirit of forgiveness towards men, appeared. Indeed every thing that Christ did to work out redemption for us appears mainly in the close of his life. Here mainly is his satisfaction for sin, and here chiefly is his merit of eternal life for sinners, and here chiefly appears the brightness of his example, which he hath set us for imitation.–Thus we have taken a brief view of the things whereby the purchase of redemption was made with respect to his righteousness that appeared in them. […] Many martyrs have endured much in their bodies, while their souls have been joyful, and have sung for joy, whereby they have been supported under the sufferings of their outward man, and have triumphed over them. But this was not the case with Christ; he had no such support; but his sufferings were chiefly those of the mind, though the other were extremely great. In his crucifixion Christ did not sweat blood, as he had done before; not because his agony was now not so great, but his blood had vent another way. But though he did not sweat blood, yet such was the sufferings of his soul, that probably it rent his vitals. […] Under these sufferings, Christ, having cried out once and again with a loud voice, at last said, IT IS FINISHED, (John xix. 30.) “and bowed the head, and gave up the ghost.” And thus was finished the greatest and most wonderful thing that ever was done. Now the angels beheld the most wonderful sight that ever they saw. Now was accomplished the main thing that had been pointed at by the various institutions of the ceremonial law, by all the typical dispensations, and by all the sacrifices from the beginning of the world. Christ being thus brought under the power of death, continued under it till the morning of next day but one. Then was finished that great work, the purchase of our redemption, for which such great preparation had been made from the beginning of the world. Then was finished all that was required in order to satisfy the threatenings of the law, and all that was necessary in order to satisfy divine justice; then the utmost that vindictive justice demanded, even the whole debt, was paid. Then was finished the whole of the purchase of eternal life. And now there is no need of any thing more to be done towards a purchase of salvation for sinners; nor has ever any thing been done since, nor will any thing more be done for ever and ever.
The end of God’s creating the world, was to prepare a kingdom for his Son, (for he is appointed heir of the world,) which should remain to all eternity. So far as the kingdom of Christ is set up in the world, so far is the world brought to its end, and the eternal state of things set up–so far are all the great changes and revolutions of the world brought to their everlasting issue, and all things come to their ultimate period–so far are the waters of the long channel of divine providence, which has so many branches, and so many windings, emptied into their proper ocean, which they have been seeking from the beginning of their course, and so are come to their rest. So far as Christ’s kingdom is established in the world, so far are things wound up and settled in their everlasting state, and a period put to the course of things in this changeable world; so far are the first heavens and the first earth come to an end, and the new heavens and the new earth, the everlasting heavens and earth, established in their room.
Dessert: The Great Divorce (Lewis)
For those who haven’t read it, first of all, how dare you. The basic idea of this book is Lewis’ imaging what it would be like if damned souls in Hell could be permitted to take a field trip to Heaven. Now before any prim and proper theologians rush in to wring their hands and offer their “ackshullys” I think we are all grown ups here and can tell the difference between a systematic theological explanation of Heaven and Hell and departed souls and a daydream by an Oxford scholar.
So then, in this daydream hell is a vacuous grey city. It sprawls for miles without end, and its defining feature is the utter loneliness. Hell in modern thought is imagined as a continuation of the most raucous parties. In Lewis’ imagination this is the opposite of the case. Hell is empty, not because no one is there, but because all the souls there are so shrunken and have isolated themselves to a minuscule speck of vainglorious dust.
But in this daydream of Lewis, he finds a bus-stop where damned souls can catch a trolly to the High Countries. He joins the queue and takes the cosmic ride up to glory. When they arrive it dawns upon these travelers that in comparison to this bright world they are ghostly. The blades of grass don’t bend beneath their feet, a single leaf is heavier than an Olympian weight-lifter can lift. This is the real world. Shadow gives way to substance.
There is no over-arching narrative to this story, it is largely episodic. Lewis eavesdrops on conversations between these damned souls and the bright people (i.e. usually saved family/friends of the damned…but occasionally angels).
Maternal love, left unchecked becomes a fierce demon. Whereas reptilian lust when subdued by grace becomes a mighty steed. Unbridled intellectualism is proven to be a face-mask for conniving gain. Self-sufficiency is revealed to be a vice and not a virtue (bleeding charity).
One episode is worth lingering on. A saintly woman, who on earth was simply a faithful wife and homemaker, but married to an emotionally immature man. When they meet in the “High Countries” he tries to use her virtuous pity to lure her with him back into the miserable emptiness of hell. She challenges him:
“Quick,” she said. “There is still time. Stop it. Stop it at once.”
“Stop what?”
“Using pity, other people’s pity, in the wrong way. We have all done it a bit on earth, you know. Pity was meant to be a spur that drives joy to help misery. But it can be used the wrong way round. It can be used for a kind of blackmailing. Those who choose misery can hold joy up to ransom, by pity. […]”
“And that,” said the Tragedian, “that is all you have understood of me, after all these years.” I don’t know what had become of the Dwarf Ghost by now. Perhaps it was climbing up the chain like an insect: perhaps it was somehow absorbed into the chain.
“No, Frank, not here,” said the Lady. “Listen to reason. Did you think joy was created to live always under that threat? Always defenceless against those who would rather be miserable than have their self-will crossed? For it was real misery. I know that now. You made yourself really wretched. That you can still do. But you can no longer communicate your wretchedness. Everything becomes more and more itself. Here is joy that cannot be shaken. Our light can swallow up your darkness: but your darkness cannot now infect our light. No, no, no. Come to us. We will not go to you. Can you really have thought that love and joy would always be at the mercy of frowns and sighs? Did you not know they were stronger than their opposites?”
“Love? How dare you use that sacred word?” said the Tragedian. At the same moment he gathered up the chain which had now for some time been swinging uselessly at his side, and somehow disposed of it. I am not quite sure, but I think he swallowed it. Then for the first time it became clear that the Lady saw and addressed him only.
“Where is Frank?” she said. “And who are you, Sir? I never knew you. Perhaps you had better leave me. Or stay, if you prefer. If it would help you and if it were possible I would go down with you into Hell: but you cannot bring Hell into me.”
“You do not love me,” said the Tragedian in a thin bat-like voice: and he was now very difficult to see.
“I cannot love a lie,” said the Lady. “I cannot love the thing which is not. I am in Love, and out of it I will not go.”
The question Lewis leaves us with is this: what good thing do you find your hand clasping, and have you surrendered it to the Lord? Clinging to earthly trinkets is a sure way to discover that you’ve always dwelt in hell even while on earth. But in surrender you find that you receive both heaven and earth along with it.
Modern Big Eva thinkers pretend to put on their best Lewis impersonation and warn us against making family or even the Bible into an Idol. Perhaps we’re not far off from some big-brained evangelical telling us that if we aren’t careful we will make Jesus Himself into an idol. I don’t think this is Lewis’ warning. His warning is not to warn us off from valuing good things. He is wrapping Christ’s teaching in this daydream of his. Jesus said to give up houses and money and family and land, to even hate them by comparison to your love for Christ. But in giving it all up, we receive it all. But this must be done by faith. This must be done by first seeing our ghostliness, and secondly being made into a real person by receiving Christ in all His fullness by faith.
