The Tallest Watchtower

This was a very short book (it showed as six pages in my e-reader).  It consists of a very short story, and a short story.

I should start by saying that short fiction is a very difficult medium to work in, and it can be very hit or miss. Some people will resonate with a story, while others will not get it at all. There is little time for characterization, but you can present a powerful image or argument (without having to deal with wrap up or continuing consequences).

With that disclaimer, I must say I was not very impressed with either story in this book.

The first story was very moving, but very predictable. Adoption is a powerful picture in Christianity, but the author failed to bring everything together and present a clear message. Similarly, as Christians, we do not mourn death in the same way as unbelievers, but there are still some emotional consequences (which were not respected here).

The second story was also very predictable, and the message is a little odd (from a Christian point of view). It felt a lot like "Ghost Dad" or something like that.

On top of these things, the editing left a lot to be desired.  I noticed several grammatical errors, and the language was stilted in places.

Sherman

"Sherman: The Ruthless Victor" (Agostino Von Hassell and Ed Breslin) - This was a short book at 115 pages.  Before becoming a Christian, I was never much interested in biographies.  Now, I am finding them really intriguing.  I do enjoy those that use more first hand accounts, but that does tend to drive up the book size.  This book uses more second and third hand accounts, and works as a good overview of the life of Sherman.

I also like to evaluate the theological angle of these accounts, but it seems pretty clear that Sherman was an atheist (he certainly lived his life that way).  He was also a pretty unlikeable guy, and it makes for an unpleasant experience just reading a description of him.  That is no slight on the authors, it's who he was.


Sherman is famous for saying "War is Hell".  What few people realize, is that he was one of the people instrumental in bringing about the Hell of total war.  I will leave further discussion of that for another post.


What I found most interesting was that Sherman nearly became a banker.  After that failed, he was a teacher at an army academy, which ended in the run up to the Civil War (the school was nationalized by the South, and Sherman returned to the North in preparation for returning to the Army).

His performance in the war was actually pretty unimpressive.  He did a lot of damage, but didn't face a whole lot of actual combat.

I think the clearest revelation of Sherman's character comes from how he treats others.

The press was initially critical of him, and he of them.  Later in life, he became famous and he warmed to the coverage then.  He also sought to manipulate the media.

General Grant clearly thought well of him, and went out of his way to protect Sherman's position and reputation (not in a combat sense).

How does Sherman repay him?  By belittling the man in his private notes (p 94).


Overall, a good book about a wicked man.


This does make me want to read about Grant...

The Party of Death

I'm listening to the "Dividing Line" from September 6 (I'm behind, surprise!).  Doc got a hold of the Democratic platform, and is (for some reason) shocked by it.

I previously ran some numbers pertaining to the charge that the Democratic Party is the "party of death".

Apparently, they just come out and say it...

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." (emphasis added)

It would appear that anyone pro-life, or even not 100% pro-death is not welcome...

Women's Rights

This article from CNN pretty much speaks for itself:

"Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asserted Wednesday that the bill 'tramples (on) the rights of women under the guise of nondiscrimination, while doing absolutely nothing to provide women with needed resources for their babies, female and male.'"

So, stopping the disproportionate killing of baby girls is protecting women's rights.

Anti-Science?

A telling editorial from CNN:

"According to a paper in a recent American Sociological Review, conservatives with at least a bachelor's degree have, over the last several decades, lost their faith in science to an amazing degree."

 It appears we are in a war of words.  If you define "science" as common descent or anthropogenic global warming, then sure.

Similarly, people are redefining "pregnancy":

"pregnancy, which occurs at implantation" (quoting James N. Martin, Jr., president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists)

 So, abortifacients are not abortion, because abortion deals with pregnancy, and pregnancy doesn't start until implantation - neatly side-stepping the issue of whether a human life is extinguished.

More and Frith

I wanted to give an in depth example from the life of Thomas More.

Shakespeare came after all this, but when he said "life is a stage, and we are actors upon it" - that would resonate with the people of England at this time.  More's life and death had this idea of display (nothing wrong with that, we are telling the story written by God, if you will).

What is surprising is the lack of introspection; the comparison of what is happening to the climax of the story - the death of Jesus.

John Frith was the student of William Tyndale.  He had fled England, but was convinced to return, as the king was showing Protestant (or "Lutheran") tendencies.

However, his return was too soon.  The king was looking to break from Rome, but was still looking to be seen as "Catholic".  Frith was captured, imprisoned in the tower, and executed.

What was More's role in all this (p 333)?

"One of More's informants, probably a member of the network which had flourished during his chancellorship, obtained a copy of one of these works [by Frith, on the "new faith"] and brought it to Chelsea [More's primary home]"

So, More had spies who would betray men.

More's reaction to reading Frith's work was (pardon the old English):
"his treatise 'sholde cost hym the beste bloude in hys body'"

Now, More had retired at this point, so his charges were not legally binding.  However, that is precisely what happened.  More's response:
"'I fere me sore that Cryst wyll kyndle a fyre of fagottees for hym, & make hym theirin swete the bloude out of hys body here, and strayte frome hense send hys soule for euer into the fyre of hell'"


It's remarkable that no one gave any pause in all this.  "Hey, here we are paying 30 pieces of silver to traitorous men to put to death those who challenge our traditions - doesn't this remind anyone of some other story?"

The Life of Thomas More

"The Life of Thomas More" (Peter Ackroyd) - I touched previously on why this was a painful book to read.

But the most painful part was extracting the theology of the thing.

The facts are pretty clear cut:

1. Henry VIII declared the independence of the Church of England (following the Pope's refusal to grant him an annulment with Catherine)
2. There followed an edict to swear an oath of loyalty to the King as the head of the Church of England - which More refused to sign (claiming it was contrary to his conscience)
3. More was eventually tried for treason, and executed for the same

It's easy to read this into a context of martyrdom - executed for refusing to act contrary to one's conscience.

But, things are not so cut and dried.  Is Servetus a martyr because he was executed for his beliefs?  He denied the Trinity, which most would interpret (via 2 John) that he did not know the right Christ and did not have the Father.

So, the question is - did More die for the right thing?  And, if he died for the wrong reasons, was this a simple error on his part ("dying a stupid death" as might be said), or was it worse - the final act of the self-righteous?

What worries me is the proclamation - what are we saying.  The best is to die for the proclamation that Jesus Christ paid the price for sin, that we can be made right with God through trusting in Him and what He did.  That we will turn from sin and forsake it.

Ackroyd sums up More's life on page 400:

"He embodied law all his life, and he died for it."

Where is the Gospel?  Where is the forgiveness of sins?  Where is the finished work of Christ?

On page 402 (regarding the disposition of his items):

"He gave into [his wife] Alice More's keeping his hair shirt and scourge"

More wore a hair shirt nearly continuously his adult life.  It served to chafe and aggravate his skin.  I don't think anyone today does such a thing - it is entirely foreign to our thinking (similarly, the scourge was for whipping himself).

Could this be done in a godly fashion?  Maybe.  The problem is, it detracts from the finished work of Christ.  It can be seen as "I must pay the price".


That's the overview.  I will cover at least one more topic later.