Hillbilly Elegy

I read the New York Times Bestseller Hillbilly Elegy, and it is a very good book.  It is well written, honest, and gives a glimpse into a life style many don’t know.  The subject matter makes the book tend towards sadness and pity, but has just enough humor in it to stop it from becoming overly depressing.  The book looks at not just the life, but the mind-set behind what we think of as Appalachia. 

Full disclosure, I grew up in Appalachia.  So much so that when I read the opening chapter of this book and he said his family lived in Ohio from Kentucky, I thought “That is not Appalachia; that is not the South.”  I had to fight against my own upbringing to be able to listen to this Ohio guy talk about Appalachia.  I have been to many towns like Jackson, KY, and my own hometown would probably be Middletown, OH if Eastman chemical ever closed.  I imagine Kingsport maybe a lot like the Middletown that his grandparents moved to when their factory was still open.

Remembering that I actually enjoyed the book, don’t buy the hype that this book is “a civilized reference guide for an uncivilized election” as Jennifer Senior from the New York Times writes.  It really has nothing to do with the election.  It is a look into a forgotten group of people.  Maybe this forgottenness played a role in the election, but the book is not really trying to address any of that. 

It is a beautiful picture of a society that grows increasingly more lost.  The brokenness, the hopelessness, and the ever rising climate of drugs and violence are real.  I went home to Kingsport this year, the first time in four years, and the change is saddening.  There is such a thing as mountain poor, and this books shows it well.  It also ends up showing how that poverty does not stay in the mountains but ends up in places like Middletown, OH.  If you want a look at what poverty can do to people and to a community, then read this book.  It is revealing and eye opening.

However, the book is ultimately very frustrating for not only its lack of answers, which it is upfront about, but also its inability to see the real problem staring it in the face. 

JD Vance, the author, ends the book talking about some need for social safety nets are needed and how some problems the government can’t fix.  He is trying to advocate for some middle of the road kind of approach.  But, if he would just read his own book with a thought of Christ and the gospel, he would have the major portion of his answer.  Vance’s story involves a broken home, a mother who was a drug addict and a father who ran off.  Multiple marriages later, and more abuse than I care to think about, Vance escapes thanks to the GI bill and divine providence that goes unrecognized.  At one point in the book, Vance lives with his mother’s second husband and adopted father.  The father has found religion, admittedly a Pentecostal variety, but he is now married and with kids of his own.  Vance is surprised at how normal they are and how they don’t fight, they don’t scream, and they don’t hurt each other.  But, he does not stay because he feels he doesn’t belong and he will not give up his rock-n-roll CDs.  His own family, including grandparents, profess but never really go to church.  He often wonders why some make it and some don’t.  But, he often acknowledges the devastation of the broken home created by divorce and regrets the social ethic he learned of looking down on education and elevating fighting.  The problems Mr. Vance sees are sin, and the solution is Jesus Christ.  The problems stem from an unchristian worldview and can be fixed by the blood of the savior and following His worldview.  Yet, it is not really ever considered as an option. 

It is heartbreaking to think of generations of those trapped in the hopelessness of this environment.  But the solution is not going to be found ultimately in anything man invents.  The solution is the hope of Jesus Christ who redeems us from our sins and saves us from all the power of the devil.  Mr. Vance may have escaped Middletown, OH and Jackson, KY, but he has not escaped the problem.  Appalachia is a place where the reigning power of sin has beaten the hope out of people.  Their reality demands a hopelessness.  He has traded it for a world of money and power where the reigning power of sin feeds delusion and lies regarding the problem, the answer, and situation ending up in misplaced hope and shifting sand confidence.  Both places are under the reigning power of sin and subject to the wrath of God because of it. 

Without the gospel, the Hillbilly Elegy ends much, much worse than what he lived through.  Without the gospel it ends in damnation and eternal torment.  With the gospel, it not only avoids damnation and gives a better life after death, but it redeems life on earth and equips people to handle the situations faced even in the deep “hollars” of Appalachia.  

Seeking a Better Country - book review

Seeking a Better Country by DG Hart and John Muether is overall a good book that looks critically at the history of Presbyterianism in America.  If you are worried that Hart carries over some of his usual tone from his blog, do not worry.  This book is even handed and avoided scorn and condemnation.  It does point out places that the church may have gone wrong, but even then it is done with a gentleness that will surprise many.  It is a well-researched book and many will learn from it.  It comes up to the modern day and thus it does not have the opportunity to dive too deeply into any one period of history, yet applies the broad sweep of history to today.  I appreciated the book a great deal.

That said, I have one large fundamental disagreement with this book that I think throws both Hart and Muether off in their historical application and point.  This fundamental disagreement colors their understanding of all subsequent Presbyterian history differently than I color it. 

Before I get into that point, I do want to point out one other small weakness.  Hart and Muether are OPC guys and thus the Southern Church gets a bit of a short stick in this book.  And some PCA guys might get heartburn when they read the conclusion that the PCA was not really unified in its formation (pg.236), and that the OPC is more confessional and the PCA more evangelical (pg.257).  Those are really minor complaints, but maybe worth mentioning.

 My fundamental disagreement with the book is this statement: “For confessional Presbyterians, including the authors, who tend to put a premium on the teachings of the Westminster Standards, highly prize the Presbyterian form of church government, and esteem the reverence and simplicity of historic Presbyterian worship, the era of the Old School Presbyterianism is the most appealing” (pg.257).  I applaud the honest expression of their own bias in this history, however, it means they have seriously misunderstood the Great Awakening and the Old Side – New Side Controversy.

Overall the section in the book about the Great Awakening is better than most books.  They don’t go overboard trying to smear the Old Side, and they are willing to admit some excess on the part of Gilbert Tennent.  However, in the conclusion to the discussion they state this: “Many of the Old Side objections had already been removed with the formation in 1745 of the Synod of New York and its affirmation of creedal subscription and insistence that members submit to synodical decisions” (pg.66). 

I think that is simply historically wrong.  Creedal subscription never seems to have been a debate between the two groups.  So, I am not sure why that is in there.  The submission to synodical decisions was indeed an issue, but because the Tennent’s were willing to submit to synodical decision of fellow New Siders did not mean they were willing to do so with Old Siders.  Any honest evaluation of the New Side behavior leading up to the split has to come to the conclusion that the New Siders were a disorderly group that viewed the Old Siders as unconverted wretches.  Go read “Dangers of the Unconverted Ministry” again and remember Gilbert is preaching in a church that is not his own, in the bounds of an Old Side Presbytery, and had vacant pulpit.  The sermon is a warning not to call an Old Sider because they are Pharisees.  Not surprisingly within a year that church split with the New Side minority faction erecting a church literally across the highway from the original church.  One of the first actions of the Conjunct Presbytery (the first New Side Presbytery after the split) was to order men to go on a preaching tour that included churches that were part of the Old Side Synod of Philadelphia several of which were not even vacant!  This group actively tried to split churches. 

And therein lies the rub.  Seeking a Better Country laments the trend in Presbyterianism to go with so-called progress and innovate in an attempt to nab the culture or more members, yet the New Side is the group that did just that during the Great Awakening.  It was the New Side that focused on individualism and had no problem throwing out church regulations and authority.  It was the New Side that fostered a spirit of celebrity pastors, lower ministerial standards, and the “world is my parish” ideas.  It was the New Side that fostered innovation in preaching styles and added “conversion narratives” as a requirement for membership not to mention ordination.  This tension then between accepting the New Side conduct and desiring to remain a confessional, orderly church is still inherent in Old School Presbyterianism.  The Old School is the New Side.  The New School is the New Side taken to the next logical step. 

This acceptance of the New Side as heroes of the faith leads Hart and Meuther to look uncritically upon the post-reunion phase of the church.  An agreement was reached in 1758 that was to be a Plan of Union, yet this plan of Union was violated in almost every point as early as the year 1762.  In that year the New Side majority Synod violated Point 6, which was the only doctrinal point in the Plan of Union.  They broke point 7 often through their refusal to do things, but clearly in 1766 when they disbanded on Old Side majority presbytery without the presbyteries consent.  They also earlier had refused to create a Presbytery west of the Appalachia Mountains claiming 5 churches were not enough to start a Presbytery, but the next year created a Presbytery with 5 churches.  The only difference . . . the presbytery west of the Appalachia Mountains would have had an Old Side majority, and the other had a New Side majority.  The New Side systematically destroyed their Old Side opponents with the majority power (which violated article 2).  This unconditional acceptance also leads to praise of John Witherspoon ignoring the shadier parts of his character and his transformation of Princeton from a training ground for ministers to a training ground for lawyers and politicians. 

In the end the book is worth a read.  However, the problems pointed out by Hart and Muether seem to have an earlier origin that is not addressed.  Using the Old School as the high point requires an acceptance of the New Side.  So go read the book, just make sure you take a hard look at the Great Awakening.  It is not all it’s cracked up to be. 

Escondido Theology Chapter 8

Chapter 8 was easily the most pointless of the entire book. It is a review of three books about worship. The title of Frame's book is The Escondido Theology, but the subtitle is A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology. This chapter on worship has nothing to do with Two Kingdoms. And this is a major point. I think we ought to start seeing a difference between the Escondido Theology and Two Kingdoms.

I say that not because I disagree with the three books reviewed. The only point Frame makes that I find even remotely on target in this chapter is that he points out that a book by Marva Dawn entitled Reaching Out without Dumbing Down claims to be a new path through the worship wars, and it really is nothing new. Marva Dawn argues for traditional worship without being up front about it. Frame does not like this because Frame favors new stuff in worship. I don't like it because they ought to just say out loud that the traditional way is right and then argue for it. We don't need a new way through the worship wars we need to win them. But then Dawn is not associated with the seminary, I don't think. The book did get a nod from Horton's worship book A Better Way.

The most interesting stuff came in the review of D.G. Hart and John Meuther who co-wrote With Reverence and Awe. Here Frame seems to deny the idea of a dialogue form of worship. He does not come out and say so, but seems to have his "snark" on full blast when complaining that Hart and Muether believe reformed worship does require that form. I think that Hart and Muether are right, and in fact, it is hard not read the Reformers are requiring it in worship. Modern worship has no support among the Reformers. Now, Frame refuses to actually interact much in this chapter. Rather he complains and then directs people to his book Worship in Spirit and Truth. He does make sure to add that Hart has failed to overthrow the argument of Frame's own book. No bias there I am sure. Overall this 6 page chapter adds nothing to the book, and really should have just been left out. One gets the idea it was not left out because Frame refused to leave his pet subject alone.

Book Review: Heaven is for Real

As I said earlier, I am trying to stay more up to date with what is going on and with what others are reading. To that I have read a lot of good little philosophy books that teach philosophy using modern culture. The Philosophy of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Philosophy of the Matrix, of Lost, of Star Trek and of Star Wars. It is a great series that I recommend if you are brushing up on Philosophy. Someone ought to do something similar with theology . . .

But the real reason I am writing is to discuss the popular book Heaven is for Real. If you are unfamiliar with it, it is a book that tells the story of Colton Burpo, a 4 year old (I am not going to double check his age, it is young) who claims to have gone to heaven. Now, it is not a near death experience. He never died or stopped breathing or anything like that. But he was in the hospital after having appendicitis, which burst and poisoned him for 5 days. His father is a pastor in Imperial, NE and writes the book from the view point of he and his wife discovering what Colton experienced through their questioning of him off and on for the next year and a half or so.

The book is well written and anyone with a child will be emotional pulled in as the parent pray for God to spare the life of their child. Seriously that part will make you think about your own kids. Rev. Burpo tries very hard to make Colton's story seem like it would line up with Scripture, and reminds us that there is no way a 4 year old would know this even one who attends Sunday School. At times this will make you think Rev. Burpo should find better Sunday School material, but the point is well taken. At first the claims of Colton do seem to line up with Scripture. But by the end of the book, you can't even pretend that anymore.

Which leads me to a real critique. . . Colton ought to be considered a prophet if you believe everything he says. He speaks to Jesus and the Spirit (who is blue in heaven according to Colton). This book brings up all sorts of canon is closed issues that Rev. Burpo never addresses.

Another point is that Colton says he was in heaven for 3 minutes, but he did a lot of stuff like meet his long dead grandpa, speak with Jesus, learn stuff, pet Jesus's horse, and watch the end of the world battle. He also seems to have some sort of run in with Satan, but maybe that was part of the end of the world battle. Colton always clammed up when they asked him about Satan. Rev. Burpo tries to quote Scripture to make us think that time works differently in heaven, but it is a stretch.

Yet another problem is that a lot of this stuff is extra Scriptural. The dead saints have wings of differing sizes. Colton had them too although Colton was not dead. The final battle included monsters and people, not Jesus coming and winning as Revelation would have it. There are animals in heaven too.

Again, logical problems pop up that Rev. Burpo ignores. Colton says he watched the final battle and it included his father fighting on the side of Christ while women and children watch. My first thought was did Colton see himself fighting on the side of Christ? If not why not? Does Colton dies as a child and therefore has to sit and watch? Well, it is never addressed.

We are supposed to believe Colton's story because he knew things he could not know. He knew that his father was praying and his mom was on the phone while in the operating room. Guessable. But he also knew the dead grandpa, who he rightly identified when he saw a young picture of grandpa. Yes, we all look young in heaven with no glasses. And he also knew about the sister who died in utero before Colton was conceived. He met her in heaven. She did not have a name because the parents never named her. They could not agree on a name.

All of the evidence is emotional, and so is the whole book. I kept coming back to the verses about Lazarus and the rich man in my head. They have Moses and the Prophets, they won't believe a person coming back from the dead. This book will captivate a lot evangelicals, but it will not do a thing for an unbeliever.

Heaven is for real, but don't take Colton's word for it, take God's.

Children at the Table but Not at the Baptistry

I wanted to read Dr. Venema’s book Children at the Lord’s Table. So I went on Interlibrary Loan and typed in the title of the book. Silly me, I did realize that there were multiple books by the same title. I ended up getting the same titled book, but by a Disciples of Christ minister named John T. Hinant. And while I still plan to read Dr. Venema’s book, I am glad that I made the mistake. Hinant’s book was fascinating for several reasons even though I disagreed with his conclusions. Hinant is in favor of infants and children at the table despite the fact that the Disciples of Christ is an ‘adult only baptism’ church. I had no idea how far spread this movement had become until I read this book. Hinant argues that the right order of events is communion-confirmation-baptism. Hinant’s book is also interesting because it grew out of a poll by mail he conducted about the subject. Apparently communing unbaptized children is a fairly regular practice despite the fact that it is not supposed to be in the Disciples churches. Hinant also briefly touches on one major fact that I think is missing from the Presbyterian-Reformed debate and that is the confirmation aspect.

I do think that Hinant overstates the historical evidence for Paedo-Communion (PC). He fails to note the seeming objections of Origen, Clement of Alexandria as well as the Didascalia. He then also just sweeps out of hand the idea that Cyprian’s adherence to the practice might not be universal. Most of the rest of his historical proof is about young children, but clearly not infants. He then admits that as Confirmation was moved away from the moment of baptism so too did the taking of communion move away from baptism. Confirmation was necessary. Hinant called this a problem for Protestants who did not want to make Confirmation a sacrament since it barred access to a sacrament.

One other point that seemed to be the case in some of the quotes about infant communion is that they were linked to a reading of John 6 that required the eating of the flesh to be saved. Infant communion is inextricably linked to the idea that communion is necessary for salvation. Clearly the ancients who did adhere to this idea viewed it as necessary for eternal life that is why infants are argued for then and it is still the reason now. Sacramentalism is a prerequisite for the PC position.

Some of the quotes made me wonder if they administered the sacrament once to infants to get them “saved”, but was the communing continued? It was hard to tell from a lot of the quotes.

It was an educational book to see adult baptism only denominations allowing young children and infants to the Table. I still disagree with his book, but it was interesting to

Multiple Book Reviews

It has been a while since I have done a book review, so let me try to do several at once.

Decision in Philadelphia, by Christopher and James Collier, is a magnificent book. It takes a look into the writing of the Constitution of the United States. It introduces you to the major players with nice biographical sections, gives insight into the debates, the politics, and the outcome. This book has some wonderful things that really challenged and changed my opinion about the Constitution and the Convention. One such change is whether or not Madison was truly the “Father of the Constitution”. The Colliers do a fairly convincing job showing that the real father of the Constitution might ought to be Charles Pickney of South Carolina, and that Madison launched a smear campaign to remove the importance of Pickney even going so far as to never record a single speech given by Pickney during the Convention. This is just a small glimpse of the fun and enjoyable discussions on the heart of the U.S. Constitution that happen in this book. Even if you disagree with where the authors come out, this book is a great read. And it is readable, which is also nice too.

Teaching the Reformation is widely overpriced, but still very good. The book examines the Reformation specifically how it was passed on in the 100 years after it came to Basel. The book only examines Basel. Thus, the author breaks down preaching patterns, teaching methods, ministering practices, and other factors in Basel from 1529 to 1629. The book is hampered slightly in that not much is available from Oecolampadius and his contemporaries who brought the Reformation to Basel. It would have been more enlightening to see that. However, the book still does a good job of showing the impact of cultural trends, educational trends, and the goals of the Reformers in the city. I have a few complaints. She is far too nice to Simon Sulzer and his Lutheranizing. That hurts the book in my opinion. It is also obviously scholarly work, which makes it a fairly hard read. Don’t expect to finish it in a weekend. And be familiar with Ramism before you get into the book. I was surprised to see what an extensive role Ramism played in Basel. Also she references graphs of ages of pastors and education levels and stuff like that, but all the graphs are in the back. I do not like to flip to the back while reading. I found that annoying. The book is good if you are a pastor who cannot get enough Reformation history. If you are a casual reader, wait until the book comes up on e-bay.

1066 was recommended to me in 11 Grade English. My teacher there was a drunk and taught us nothing. However, she raved about this one book. I never read it because that teacher stunted my education. I mean she watched kids cheat on vocabulary tests and did nothing, but threw one kid out of school for crossing a chalk line that put him to close to her “secret” stash of booze. Anyway, the book is about the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, except it comes at the story from a very interesting perspective. You learn about the conquest, but you are actually reading a book about the Beaux Tapestry, which tells the tale of the Conquest. This tapestry, which is in Beaux France and dates from about 10 years after the conquest is traditionally thought of as giving the Norman account of the Conquest and the controversy that led to the war. Yet, this author, hypothesizes that the tapestry was actually a clever way to tell the English (Anglo-Saxon) side of the story while not getting its creator’s head cut off by his new rulers. Very intriguing. I do not know enough about the Tapestry to really pick sides, but I like books that argue a point, and I learned about the Conquest while being entertained in this man’s quest to discover the true meaning of one our ancient works of art and history. It is part history book and part detective novel. Good book. And yes, frame by frame pictures of the tapestry are provided so that you can follow along with her analyzing of the tapestry.

I have also read several short stories, the most notable one being The Problem of Susan by Neil Gaiman. Neil Gaiman is a very famous fantasy/science fiction writer. The recent movie Coraline is written by Mr. Gaiman. This short story is clearly a response to both C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books as well as Christianity as a whole. It takes a character named Susan who is all grown up and has dreams about Lions and White Witches and battles where winter turns to spring. She mentions a train wreck that killed her whole family including a brother named Ed. It is clearly meaning to follow the life of Susan from the Narnia books who you will recall does not return to Narnia because she likes lipstick and boys too much. One of the draw backs of the short story is that the theme of sex is a bit too graphic. However, Gaiman clearly thinks that is the problem with Christianity. He views Satan and God as together. The two are a heartless pair that have their fun with people and are really only out to please themselves. The short story is very blasphemous, but then what else do you expect from a non-Christian writer. He does actually spend a brief moment or two critiquing children’s books and Narnia as a book as well. Too moralistic and preachy the characters assert in this story. Gaiman clearly thinks that old time literature that was not so Puritanical was better for children overall. In the end, this short story was interesting and a look into the mind of someone who rejects Christ. But it’s not exactly a story for the ages.