Skip to content

Monthly Archives for January 2006

Too many books, not enough time …

I am not complaining; there’s really no such thing as too many books, unless you’re in college and had to take out a loan to pay for a semester’s worth of overpriced textbooks.

I started out 2006 with a stack of new books, all of which I was anxious to read. I say “was,” because I’ve finished two of them. For several years, I read very few novels. For the last couple of years, I have been restless without at least one good novel lying around that I can get buried in. I admit that I have, on occasion, resorted to re-reading books, especially those by James Blaylock and Dean Koontz. I’m re-reading Life Expectancy now, because it was handy. I’ll probably put it aside and pick it up again whenever I need to fill in some time.

When you’re a internationally known book reviewer like I am, people send you books, for free. It’s a very cool thing. I am, by the way, known by at least 2 people internationally, so my claim is accurate. And, I sometimes get e-mails from people who appreciate my reviews, so I guess I could say that I am an internationally respected book reviewer; but, I won’t go that far.

Before the holidays I received an advance copy (catch that? – advance copy) of Brian McLaren’s soon-to-be-published new bestseller, The Secret Message of Jesus. I’m just a couple of chapters into it, but I have to say that so far, I am not terribly impressed. But, if you’ve read my entries on John Eldredge (see the categories on the sidebar), you know that my first impressions are not always correct. It seems that McLaren has been reading NT Wright, but I’m not sure he’s drawing great conclusions. I’ll let you know after I’m done with it.

Speaking of NT Wright (how’s that for a great segue?), shortly before the holidays I received an e-mail from Barnes & Nobel inviting me to buy NT Wright’s just released The Last Word (when you’re an internationally known book reviewer, sometimes Barnes & Nobel will send you personalized e-mails about books you might like to buy). The Last Word is about how both conservative and liberal theologians misread the Bible, a topic near to my heart, so I am quite anxious to read that.

The other book I read this month was Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, which is an extremely enjoyable book. It’s not one of those books that grips you and compels you to speed read it, it’s just one of those rare books – like Lord of the Rings, or something by Dickens – that you just enjoy, page by page.

So, books, books, and more books. Never too many, but certainly not enough time.

Written on 30 January 2006 by me under Random Thoughts, Reviews with No Comments

The truth about pruning

You’ve probably heard at least one sermon or read at least one book on spiritual growth which refers to us being “pruned” by God, usually in reference to John 15:1-2, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.”

PruningI know next to nothing about pruning trees. (I know Jesus was referring to grapevines, not trees, but I think my tree analogy will work. I know nothing about pruning grapevines, either.) I know to trim off “shooters” that do nothing but sap energy from the “good” branches, and that dead branches can be removed. But other than that, you wouldn’t want me close to any of your trees. I have a number of trees on my property, but no fruit-bearing varieties. Any pruning we do is simply for aesthetics; that is, we want our trees to look nice. Branches are trimmed so the trees will “fill out,” and branches that go off in weird directions will be snipped for that reason. One commentary that I saw on John 15 said that God’s pruning process was designed to make us “look more like Jesus.” So, you can understand why my assumption (although to be honest, before now I never really thought that much about it) was that the more we are pruned, the better we will look.

For many years we had lived in the middle of suburban San Diego, in a development of nearly identical tract homes with very few mature trees. Five years ago we moved to Oregon, which is pretty much just a huge forest with a few clearings where people can live. We live one block from the edge of town, and right across the street from the city limits are some peach and cherry orchards, which I would drive by every day on my way to and from work. One day a couple of years ago, I was shocked at the aftermath of an apparent pruning: there were huge piles of branches on the ground below the trees, so much so that it seemed the poor trees had no branches left. I wish I had taken a photograph of it, but by the time I thought to go back with my camera, the debris had been removed, leaving just the poor naked trees to wait for leaves and new growth.

This year, another pruning has taken place in the orchard around the corner; not as drastic as that first year, but enough so that a couple of days ago I walked over and took some photos. As I stood looking for the best angle, I had an epiphany: Weirdscape Pruning makes you ugly, not better-looking. I stood looking at the freshly-pruned trees, which were obviously the most mature of the trees in the orchard from their size, thinking that they could have been models for the Headless Horseman’s tree in Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow. They were gnarled and scarred, and no longer had the same natural beauty and symmetry that younger trees on either side had. If my hunch is correct, it’s only a matter of time before the younger trees, too, will be pruned to the point of ugliness, for the sake of better (and more) fruit.Pruning the Orchard

Pruning makes you ugly – I had never stopped to think about that before (and don’t recall this ever being preached on – chances are it’s not a popular sermon topic, and not one that’s apt to make visitors return to your church). Obviously, the point of this kind of pruning is the fruit, not the beauty of the tree.

Now for the deep spiritual insight that you’ve all been expecting: How many times do we look at ourselves and get disappointed at our ugliness? Unless, of course, you’re a guy who sees it as rugged good looks. But seriously, don’t we look at our scars and our gnarled and sometimes missing limbs, and start to think that God’s somehow forgotten to heal us? I think we forget that “looking good” – one of my few life-long goals – is not the point. We judge ourselves, and others, on meaningless things like symmetry and lack of what we consider to be defects. But, God’s job is to prune us, and pruning ruins all of that. Everything we think is fine, gets damaged or removed. What God knows is that a fruit tree’s only real asset is its ability to produce fruit, and therefore a scar is a beautiful thing.

Written on 27 January 2006 by me under Spiritual stuff with No Comments

The Freedom of Speech Awards

I love the concept of “Freedom of Speech,” at least the way it was originally conceived. Freedom of Speech was granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, the founding fathers would probably have been a bit more concise in their wording had they conceived of the kind of perversities now considered to be “free speech” (some of which do not involve “speech” at all…), but that’s a topic for another time. I suspect they had in mind the abuses they had just fought against, specifically right to speak against the government without being shot or hanged (by the government, that is…).

Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing. So wonderful, in fact, that I have decided to establish my own “Alden’s Blurt Freedom of Speech Awards.” This just means that whenever I feel like it, I will pick someone who is exercising their Constitutional right of Free Speech, and spotlight them here. There will be no trophies, money or other prizes, just the prestige of being mentioned here.

Now, I should perhaps clarify my own perception of who best uses their freedom of speech. My own slightly warped definition of Freedom of Speech is “the right to say really stupid things in front of millions of people.” I believe that this proves and champions America’s Freedom of Speech better than anything. I am limiting, at this point, the potential candidates to those speaking about political issues, but I reserve the right to amend this at any time.

The problem, of course, is that there are just so many people to choose from.

I am very pleased to announce the first ever Alden’s Blurt Freedom of Speech Award is going to none other than my old Senator from California, Diane Feinstein. She was speaking about why the Democrats are likely to vote in a party-line vote against Samuel Alito. The issue, of course, is that he is simply not a liberal.

According to the AP, she “said things are different from when the Senate considered Breyer and Ginsburg, who were confirmed 87-9 and 96-3 respectively.” She stated:

“There was not the polarization within America that is there today and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction …“

Like Ginsburg was nominated because she was so moderate? And, like the “polarization” is something out of the Democrats’ control?

This absolutely brilliant statement by Ms. Feinstein, in my opinion (which is all that really matters here), has earned her this most prestigious honor, in proving that Free Speech doesn’t have to be true, thoughtful, or even logical. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what Freedom of Speech is all about.

Written on 24 January 2006 by me under Politics/Current Events, The Freedom of Speech Awards with 1 Comment

More on evolution

I woke up fairly early this morning thinking about the whole evolution thing – that was before I went back to sleep and had that really annoying dream, but that’s another story. I haven’t finished reading that Dover court decision yet (it’s not very entertaining reading – Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is much better), but I will at least skim the rest. In my first post on the issue, I accused Gary Trudeau of being clueless, and thought I should explain what I mean.

First, it should be noted that there are many varied definitions of “evolution,” so there’s a good chance that any discussion on the topic (including testimony at the Dover trial) will involve people using the same words, but talking about very different issues. A very basic “scientific” definition is “any change in gene (allele) frequency in a population over time.” Another definition, by Ernst Mayr (considered one of the premier evolutionary biologists) is the “gradual process by which the living world have been developing following the origin of life.” So far, it’s pretty hard to argue with these rather open definitions.

Creationists and non-scientific folk, on the other hand, typically define evolution as the process by which “primordial soup” morphed into contemporary life-forms, including a process by which man and apes evolved from common ancestors.

Then, there are varying interpretations of microevolution and macroevolution. The above “scientific” definitions would tend to encompass both of these, whereas Creationists see totally separate concepts. The typical Creationist would define microevolution as the changes (adaptations) that occur within a species, which most would accept as pretty obvious, such as people being taller on average today than 100 years ago. Macorevolution, on the other hand, means one species morphing into a new, genetically separate species.

It’s impossible to discuss without first agreeing on the definitions. What Trudeau doesn’t understand is that you can accept intra-special evolution (that is, changes to a species over time without becoming a different species) while still holding that God created Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis, and proving one doesn’t disprove the other.

But, no one (especially the evolutionists, I’m guessing) wants to clearly define the terms; it’s harder to keep the myth alive if everyone knows what you are talking about.

If we want to find truth, it would help if people would agree that truth is the real goal. This means accepting the risk that one or both (or all) are possibly – even probably – wrong about some things. Creationists tend to fall back on theological presuppositions, and scientists resort to faulty logic and playing with definitions. It’s a useless debate, at this point, except that the public is as clueless as usual. Most people will just pick whatever they find the easiest (least personally painful) to believe in, although I doubt that most could talk intelligently about their particular belief.

The side that defines the issues usually controls the issues; to this extent, the evolutionists appear to be winning. However, these victories do nothing to advance truth, since truth is not the goal, or even the issue. Rather, the goal – apparently to both sides – is merely control.

Written on 20 January 2006 by me under Politics/Current Events, Random Thoughts with 1 Comment

Channel Surfing

I don’t know about you, but I can’t stand Raymond.

I even find the title of that show annoying (not to mention presumptuous). That’s all I really have to say, except that when I’m looking for Seinfeld re-runs, and 3 channels are all showing Raymond, it’s frustrating.

So, when you see “Everybody Loves …,” don’t believe it. It’s a lie; it’s just another case of the liberal media messing with your mind.

Written on 18 January 2006 by me under Random Thoughts with No Comments

“The system’s kind of broken”

Yesterday Joe Biden was talking about the Alito confirmation hearings with Katie Couric, and suggested that “the system’s kind of broken.”

Well, duh. My question back to him would have been, “so, who broke it?”

These confirmation hearings aren’t required, but they’ve become SOP for the Senate Judiciary Committee, mainly, I think, due to the fact that they are televised. It was clear from questioning by Biden, Ted Kennedy, and others, that they were not really interested in learning anything from Alito. Rather, they were interested in 2 things: “Borking” Alito (seeing if they could get him to to say something stupid that would destroy his chances for confirmation), and in grandstanding. The grandstanding was obvious, even to the liberal press, who had to admit that some of the Dems were going over the top in their carryings-on (except for NPR’s All Things Considered, of course).

Biden took 8 of his allotted 30 minutes to ask his first question. We learned more about Biden’s views than Alito’s, and not because Alito was being non-responsive. Kennedy spent most of his time ranting about that red herring conservative Princeton group, demanding documents be subpoenaed, and in general just being Ted Kennedy. Either Kennedy is a pure idiot, or he just plays one on TV.

Kennedy should apologize to Alito and to the Judiciary Committee for his tantrum about the CAP documents. It turns out that the documents that he wanted to subpoena were freely given to him (which Kennedy’s staff, along with Committee staff members reviewed until 2 A.M. looking for smoking guns). What they found was what Alito had suggested – he didn’t appear anywhere in the documents. So, all that for nothing, except Kennedy got to accuse Alito of being a bigot, with no basis whatsoever. And again, no apologies, because after all, he’s Ted Kennedy, and he apparently doesn’t have to apologize for anything.

Also, consider the fact that no one actually expected Alito to answer the majority of questions he was asked. No judge can “guess” how he will rule on imaginary cases, nor should he. Only a fool would try – and in that regard, I guess the hearings worked to show that at least Alito is no fool.

The system is indeed broken – or at lest badly dented. Just compare the last 2 hearings (and don’t forget the Bork hearings) with earlier confirmation hearings (especially of Democratic-appointed judges). It used to be that Judges were evaluated on their qualifications, and confirmed whether they were liberal or conservative. It was the President’s call to nominate who he wanted, and this was accepted; now, the Democrats simply won’t vote for someone unless they show a streak of liberalism. Like Bush would nominate a liberal judge, just to please Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer.

Alito will be confirmed, probably along party lines, which shows that these hearings were little more than a platform for the Democratic Senators to grandstand. As I’ve said before, it is the 2-party system that appears to be broken. If this us vs. them mentality continues, it’s only going to hurt the country.

Written on 13 January 2006 by me under Politics/Current Events with 1 Comment

The Battle for Intelligence

A few weeks ago I promised to write more about the whole ID v Evolution thing. I haven’t finished reviewing that Dover court case (it’s still sitting on that same spot on my desk it was 2 weeks ago), but I promise I will.

But, I’ll talk about it a bit today, because they are at it again. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the same group behind the Dover suit, have filed a new suit against a small school in California for discussing ID in a philosophy class. So, first it’s not science, and now it’s not philosophy?

To me, this shows one thing: these people are afraid to have anyone discuss the topic. Why? Why should they care whether people believe in Creationism or ID or even Homer, for that matter? Come to think of it, they’d probably not care if some school was offering a class teaching some Native American creation myths. For some reason, they’re just bent out of shape about someone suggesting that God may, in fact, exist. I think that deep down they believe that if no one mentions God, perhaps He will cease to exist (kind of like Tinker Bell in Peter Pan).

Come on, don’t be wimps – if you believe Darwinism (or some other form of evolution) is superior, why sweat it? Will evolution stop happening because not enough people believe in it (back to the Peter Pan fear)? I’m willing to bet that these same people would yell “censorship!” if this were any other issue. But, they’re acting like little children, yelling to the courts, “Mommy, make them stop!” It’s ridiculous.

Any intelligent person knows that universal truth cannot be decided through litigation. You can suppress free speech and discussions about truth through litigation (i.e. censorship), and you can decide what appears to be true from the facts presented in the case being litigated, but that’s it. If someone could convince the Supreme Court to rule that the sky is green, would it change anything?

Now, here’s the irony of this new lawsuit: one of the basis of the suit is apparently that the views of evolutionists were not fairly represented in the class. If you don’t get the irony, consider this:

  • Mandatory science classes are typically 100% pro-evolution.
  • This same group sues to prevent the mention of any alternate views in these science classes.
  • If evolution is a science and not a philosophy, why should it be taught in a philosophy class?

Again, I will restate one of the fundamental principles upon which this blog is based: there is no such thing as “common sense.” It simply doesn’t exist. There is uncommon sense, then there is general stupidity. We simply need more people with uncommon sense to turn the lights on for everyone else. A second principle is that conservatives are just as prone to general stupidity as liberals, which is why I think the Dover case went the way it did. The defendants there were just unable to present a half-way decent case, and so far my opinion is that they deserved to lose.

One final comment on the Dover case, and these evolution vs ID suits in general: it is impossible to resolve the core issues in the courts. All you can do is prevent the discussion from continuing in various localities. Not that some court won’t try, especially the 9th Circuit, who has only proven to my satisfaction that even they are prone to the principle of general stupidity.

Written on 11 January 2006 by me under Politics/Current Events, Random Thoughts with No Comments

Could somebody please tell Pat Robertson to shut up?

What is up with Pat Robertson? Yesterday he apparently claimed that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was punishment from God, for “dividing God’s land.” Robertson seems to have this idea that he has “inside information” about God’s wrath; however, I suspect that if God were to reveal that info to anyone, it probably wouldn’t be him.

Actually, I think Robertson is a victim of bad theology combined with old age. This whole Israel superstition thing that so many American Christians have is pretty wacky, and it’s based on a theological system that makes almost as much sense as The daVinci Code.

Without going into the whole history of dispensationalism and pre-millennialism (which, by the way, is very fascinating), it’s a theory that was developed by John Darby in the early 1800’s, and only became popular because of the unfortunate inclusion of Darby’s footnotes in the Scofield Reference Bible, which became popular with the Fundamentalists (who apparently couldn’t tell the difference between the actual text of the Bible and what was written in the margins). There’s some evidence that the original concept of dispensationalism came from a vision by a young girl in Scotland in about 1830. Regardless, this theological system has no real historical basis. In spite of its apparent following among the pop-Christian culture, it really is not a widely accepted theory.

The Pentecostal movement, with fundmentalist roots, also adopted this theology, although dispensationalism also teaches that Pentecostal gifts stopped in the first century. This inconsistency is characteristic of dispensationalism as well as its pre-millennialist view of the “end times.” In order to follow this line of thinking, you really have to chop up the Bible in pieces and ignore things like context and other basic rules of Biblical exegesis.

A part of this defective eschatalogy is the belief that God now has two chosen peoples. One is the adopted Christian church, the other is the historical Israel. The post-WW2 creation of the current nation of Israel really set the dispensationalists off, resulting in various superstitious and sometimes radical beliefs about this current secular nation of Israel.

Which brings us to Pat Robertson, apparently a product of this Fundamentalist/ Pentecostal theological mish-mash, complicated by a lack of common sense and the power of cable TV. We should all be thankful that no one really took him seriously when he tried to run for President.

Written on 06 January 2006 by me under Politics/Current Events with No Comments

Copyright infringement is the sincerest flattery

I’ve admitted in the past to being vain enough to Google myself; as I’ve been casting my bread, so to speak, on the cyberspace waters for a while now, it’s always interesting to see both references and links to Smallvoices as well as find my articles on other sites. A while ago I ran across a nice comment by John O’Keefe of Ginkworld:

i love this site – small voices – i got turned on to it when karen ward took the hit on the 7q on ginkworld.net. if you are looking for more – you need to check these people out – thaey are great –

Of course, that was 3 years ago. Today, he doesn’t even link to smallvoices, so perhaps he doesn’t love us anymore…

I have copyright notices on every Smallvoices page, and a few times people have actually respected that and asked for permission to reprint articles, which I truly appreciate. However, more often than not my articles are reprinted without my knowledge or permission – not that I really mind all that much. I think it’s kind of funny, actually. The ones I’ve found do give me credit (I probably couldn’t locate the ones who don’t give me credit), and usually include a link to Smallvoices. I’m not in it for the money anyway; I’ll settle for fame and power.

I’ve sometimes thought it would be fun to post a list of sites where my stuff has appeared without permission, and sometime I might do it. I’ve had entire articles printed in ministry newsletters (not mine, mind you). I once had a lady in The Netherlands e-mail me to say that her pastor had printed out hundreds of copies of one of my articles and handed them out in church. You’d think the pastor would have written to me, but it was nice that someone did. Again, I don’t really mind – copyright infringement is the sincerest form of flattery.

By the way, I am not saying it’s okay for people to steal my stuff, in case you were getting any ideas …

Early this morning I discovered a college student named Jamie L. from Dallas, Texas (aka pwphil413), whose blog apparently linked to Smallvoices. In looking at the blog, it finally dawned on me that a photo I had taken was her background photo. She hadn’t copied it, however, she had just linked to the image on a Smallvoices page. That’s cool – and I’m glad she likes it.

I guess that’s really the point, isn’t it?

Written on 03 January 2006 by me under Random Thoughts with No Comments

Final thoughts on Eldredge

A few weeks ago I started writing some thoughts about John Eldredge’s Waking the Dead. Well, I’ve finally finished the book, and while I still think my criticisms are valid, my overall conclusion is that this is a very important book that many, many people should read, in spite of its faults.

This is why I think the book is so important:

  • His emphasis on the goodness of the Christian’s heart. While there are thousands of people out there who will tell you that the heart of man is evil, polluted by original sin and only good for the trash heap (that old “total depravity” thing), there are very few who dare to tell the truth: that we have been made righteous, that we are “whiter than snow” and that our heart is good, and that it matters to God.

    Everyone needs to hear this. Not just hear it, but know it, deep down in our hearts, so we can tell the enemy and those who bought in to the lie to “go [fill in the blank as you see fit].”

  • The truth that the real battle is simply the one for your heart. It’s that important.
  • His emphasis on the need for real community, not just going to church and/or going to a leader-focused Bible study/home group. Eldredge lays out a good overview of what the church should be like, but usually isn’t. I get a little tired of his “band of brothers” analogies, but bottom line is that it’s true – church should be about people supporting each other and fighting for each other, not just a leader-led relationship.

This is very important stuff, and Eldredge has the kind of voice that can be heard in nearly all types of churches.

Now, there are still a couple of things that are not perfect with this book, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention them:

  • He needs to hook up with a good theologian. This book could have been so much better, had he done so. An example is his “Daily Prayer for Freedom:” His 2nd paragraph starts out, “I cover myself with your blood…” and he proceeds to ask the Holy Spirit to restore his union with God. How is this Biblical? How can I cover myself in Jesus’ blood? or do it again? And just why do I need to have my relationship with God restored daily? Did God leave overnight? I know, I know … Psalm 51, right? But, remember, that was Old Testament, pre-Jeremiah 31, pre Pentecost, etc., etc.

    You see, he’s missed a major truth about our position in Christ. Our faith is in one act of Jesus shedding his blood, and we need to remember that. It’s probably good to pray that we be reminded of that daily, but there’s nothing more for us to do, except to acknowledge what already exists. Okay, enough of that. If you have doubts, read Romans.

  • I am still unsure about his sense of urgency. Certainly there is a battle, certainly the devil is doing his lionish prowling, and so on. And, like I agreed with earlier, I know that there is a battle raging for my heart, and for your heart. That very fact makes me think, “don’t go messing with my heart!” This sense of urgency and peril and impending doom can really mess some (not all) people up.

    I have a little plaque hanging above my desk, that I’ve had for close to 30 years, that simply says, “In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength..” Let’s not lose our heads, or our hearts.

So, with these caveats, I heartily recommend this book. The issues I have mentioned are not faith-threatening, and certainly aren’t any worse than the many of the other things you’ve probably been taught. The good things in this book are valuable enough to overlook a few theological shortcomings.

Written on 03 January 2006 by me under Eldredge, Spiritual stuff with 4 Comments