On Books: HIGHLY Recommended

On this All Hallows' Eve, I shall make a prediction: Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book, What’s So Great About Christianity, will become a classic of Christian literature. And this glowing augury comes from someone who has so far only read half the book.

D’Souza’s book is the book I wish I had written. He strikes a perfect balance† between the lay and the semi-professional intellectual. The book’s only weakness is that it is too short: D’Souza could have spent more time fattening some of his arguments, though I am not suggesting that these arguments are anorexic. They might be just right and I am simply unable to see it. But I wish that some of the chapters were a little more substantial. (The bibliography and notes are certainly complete enough to satisfy the interests of more inquisitive readers.)

I promise you will be challenged and edified by this book. I think the book will set record sales numbers; I can see book groups springing up all around it. I urge you to get a copy and read it, and then tell your friends, and then blog about it. It surely deserves the broad and intense attention it will get. In fact, it deserves even more than that.

Oh. Another prediction: most of D’Souza’s detractors will not read any or all of the book. Many, in fact, will not expend the requisite intellectual strength necessary to read the entire thing.

Blessings and peace,

BG

†D'Souza also strikes a glorious balance between Protestant and Catholic expressions of Christian faith. Both sides in the Christian complex will find much to cheer about.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

A New Magnificat

In Swahili his name means "one who is blessed." It seems a fitting name. In fact, in American politics his name surely means "charmed."

Of course, I am talking about the freshman senator from Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. He is being presented to us as the next big thing; he is the rising star in American progressivism. He graces the cover of the most recent Time magazine; he streaked across the talkshow skies this past weekend, and we are left with a glowing after-image seared into our minds.

Some of you might recall that the late Pope John Paul II wrote a book called Crossing The Threshold of Hope, which was wildly popular among the faithful. It still ranks in the top 20,000 of Amazon. Now comes The Audacity of Hope, written by Mr. Obama, which ranks atop both today's Amazon and Barnes & Noble bestseller lists. It has not yet this morning shown up on the New York Times bestseller list, but we need but wait another thirty seconds and it will be perched on top, I am sure.

I watched Mr. Obama on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, (transcript is here) and I must say he is, indeed, a winner. I have no doubt that he shall be a very serious candidate for president, particularly in 2012. However, my sense is that he is, perhaps, still too young to make it to the White House two years from now. After all, he has yet to have to fight in even one reelection campaign. And I think he might be bucking history, though I am not sure; for if he does aim for the White House in 2008, he might very well be the first senator to win the presidency before completing one whole term in the Senate.

HOSANNA POLITICS

Remember with me what it was like, at least according to the gospels, when Jesus entered Jerusalem just days before his crucifixion. He was greeted with fanfare, palm branches laid out before him, his supporters shouting "Hosanna!" as he passed (Hosanna! means "save!" or "save us!" It is a cry of worship and praise, but one mixed with a plea for deliverance.) As Jesus entered Jerusalem, people greeted him as deliverer and savior.

I am struck every election cycle (at least since I have been paying attention) how often this sort of imagery and language is employed. Candidates come as deliverers: all will be right if we just elect so-and-so. It is rather alarming, for it would seem Americans (in particular) would be wary of this sort of idolatry. No one can save us, though a man or woman can surely assist us. But we must face the very real fact that we will never be delivered from an imperfect state, nor will we ever reach one that is more just. Justice is an elusive idea, as it is so often shaped by the smallest minority incensed that its particularly unique qualities are not held in higher esteem or respect. Such injustices can be found on nearly every street corner; shouts of "unfair!" do not stop in the wake of better laws or better leaders. This is not to say that there are not injustices that have been made right. It is merely to say that there will never be any rest from the fight for a more just world. In all of this, no man or woman can step in as our deliverer or liberator. They can only help us, but not as clairvoyant or prescient guides. They can help us by being willing to fight for what is hopefully right, and hopefully good.

Unfortunately we cannot remove from our political life images smacking of messianism. Jesus comes as representative of heaven; not only that, he comes as our representative to heaven. He stands in our stead; he dies as our substitute on the cross. In Christianity, it seems, there is no salvation - or damnation - without representation. Christ is the law and our public defender; he is the advocate on our behalf, doing for us what we cannot do or have no time to do. He intercedes for us; he mediates, and he takes our place when the guilty verdict is handed down. He is taken away in shackles, while we are free to go.

Curiously, political representation comprises this same sort of imagery. If there is no expectation in heaven without representation, there is no taxation without representation here in America. Senators and representatives and presidents stand before the ideals of the American state on our behalf. They are our mediators, defenders and advocates. They will do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Before the great courts of men in Washington, our elected officials stand as us incarnate. And they do so before that great Trinity, that great Godhead of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

No wonder it is so tempting to speak of candidates in implicitly religious terms, that they shall "save us" from domestic and foreign enemies. No wonder some leaders might present themselves even in messianic terms. So many of us expect so much from our leaders. I even think that we often expect too much of ourselves, living vicariously through the man or woman for whom we voted, certain that we, along with them, know how to save the world.

THE AUDACITY OF HOPE

It is a catchy title, full of poetry and boldness. There is even a veiled criticism hidden therein, that here is a man daring to hope in the face of naysayers; here is a man willing to rally the despondent masses to reject the pessismism of our current leaders, and our current paradigm. And there is even a religious simplicity to it, begging us to remember St. Paul: "Now these three remain, faith, hope and love." Hope audacious? Only to the liberty deniers among us.

Of course, I have yet to read Mr. Obama's book. I am sure that when I do read it, he will help me answer the question: Hope in what? Or are we merely to hope in hope? I hope not. And I am not quite ready to go as far as Boston radio talk show host Jay Severin went yesterday on air, whispering on in hushed, reverent tones about the left's new saint, "Saint Obama." But sainthood is in the air.

Really, it is.

ONE LAST NOTE ON "BLESSED"

I visited Daily Kos, the world's largest blog, this morning. I was searching for items on Mr. Obama, and I was surprised to find that Mr. Obama has himself posted something at Daily Kos. But I want you to note an advertising banner over Mr. Obama's essay. It is an adlink for MSNBC's news team. But note two things. Note that you find, right in the middle, a picture of the leftists' new favorite pundit, Keith Olbermann. Then, one image over, note that there is a picture of Mr. Obama, facing right, adjacent to a picture of President Bush, who is looking left. This is no accident at all. MSNBC might as well say that it is pitching Mr. Obama for President right now.

The second thing I want you to note is that MSNBC is advertising on the most liberal blog on the planet. It would be foolish to think that FoxNews would be a featured advertiser there; and it would be foolish not to think that, if Fox is indeed a mouthpiece of the Bush White House, MSNBC is aligning itself as a mouthpiece for all things progressive. After all, that is what Mr. Obama is after, since he aims to create a "workable progressive majority in this country."

This all, really, should be quite interesting.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[Barack Obama photograph originally found here. Image by Reuters.]

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hosanna politics

A Brief Look At My Reading List: In Response to Paul Sand

I was recently tagged by blogging friend Paul Sand (aka Pun Salad) and I could not have been more flattered by his kind gesture. Unfortunately I have been quite busy; too busy, really, for any general blogging, and surely too busy for any blogging that requires me to think. But I finally have a moment to apply myself to Paul’s interesting quiz (so to speak). Of course, I have modified the questions a little bit. I can’t help myself, you know. So here it goes:

1. Could you name one book that changed your life?

Is it bad form of me to split this question? I hope not. You see, I have too many books that have changed my life. I have no idea which one to pick. No doubt the Bible changed my life; even one verse changed my life. But that is not what is being asked here, I know.

The book that changed my life as a young reader would have to be Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer. I wanted to be Tom, all mischief and adventure, with a good heart and an incurable romantic streak. I wanted to get lost in a cave with my own Becky Thatcher; I wanted to love and protect her, and yet I did not want to have to worry about clean fingernails or wearing fancy shoes. I pretty much succeeded in following Tom, bounding with him through thickets and getting into a thicket of trouble along the way.

The book that changed me in my late teens would have to be The Hobbit and its glorious sequel, The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's work is a gift of heaven (and there’s that adventure theme again).

The novel that most consumed me as a young man was Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. One vignette in that novel (or most Russian novels), is more interesting than three whole modern novels.

But the book that has had the single biggest impact on me overall is G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. This book, along with his The Man Who Was Thursday and The Dumb Ox, helped me find my faith at a time when I had lost my way. And when I mean faith, I do not merely mean Christian faith. I mean my faith in human reason. I was despairing in a sort of dreary existentialism. I doubted doubt; I doubted logic. I stood on the threshold of unreason, and before I stepped on the Welcome mat, Chesterton, laughing, struck me on the side of the head with his cane. (Another book that helped me find my bearings was God In Search Of Man, by Abraham Joshua Heschel, the great Jewish religious philosopher. And then there's Thomas Howard's great but mistitled volume, Evangelical Is Not Enough.)

2. What book have you read more than once?

Well, I have read many books more than once. Brideshead Revisted is one book I wish I read more than once; as is The Count of Monte Cristo (the adventure, the romance, the sweet beauty of forgiveness). I have read Orthodoxy seemingly hundreds of times. But perhaps my favorite book, the only book of which I have a first edition, is Annie Dillard’s The Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. In a few words, the book is painfully beautiful. Her prose cannot be any better. If I could write like anyone, it would be Annie. I read her Pulitzer Prize-winning book every couple of years, just to be reminded ...

3. What one book would you want on a desert island?

This is a tough one, since the answer is really contingent on my length of stay. If I was to live out my days there, I might want something big, like the Encyclopedia Brittanica or the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps I could be happy with a King James Version of the Bible (I could speak the King’s English, since I would be my own lord); the Bible is full of enough diverse material (I think) that I could probably be content for a long time. The Count of Monte Cristo (not abridged) would be a good companion, as would be the Tolkien series. And Romano Guardini’s classic mindblower, The Lord, would not be a bad choice. And if it was a political island on which I was stranded, I might want The Closing of the American Mind, by Allan Bloom. (Shakespeare's complete works would not be a burden either.)

4. What book made you cry?

I know that I have cried several times while reading books, but for the life of me I cannot recall which books had this effect on me. I do recall crying while reading the most romantic book I ever read, A Severe Mercy, by Sheldon Vanauken. Yes, I sobbed after that one. Pure beauty. And I know tears flowed somewhere in a Dicken’s tale, perhaps in Oliver Twist. Oh, yes! Now I know: I bawled at parts of The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis.

5. What book made you laugh?

That’s easy: Lost in Place: Growing Up Absurd In Suburbia by Mark Salzman. It might be a generational thing, but this memoir, perfectly written, had me holding my sides. Those of you who remember the whole Kung Fu-thing will know what I mean. Notes From A Small Island, by Bill Bryson, is also great stuff.

6. What book do you wish had been written?

The book inside my head.

7. What book do you wish had not been written?

Whatever might come out of Luke Buckham’s head. OK. Cheap shot, and totally a joke. What book should not have been written? I don’t think there is one. Sorry. But it’s true. There are just a great number of books that should have never been read.

8. What book are you currently reading?

I never read one book at a time. I just finished a volume of George Bernard Shaw’s plays; I have Juan Williams’ newest book, Enough, on my nightstand, along with Alan Jacobs', The Narnian.

9. What book have you been meaning to read?

The hundreds of books my wife wants me to read. And then there's James Joyce's Ulysses.

Alas, there are so many important and wonderful books; it seems a sacrilege even to begin to make a list that might prioritize them.

Peace.

Gnade

Words, You, And A Pink Elephant

If I tell you not to think about a pink elephant, have I determined your thoughts? It seems undeniable that I have. In fact, it appears self-evident that words not only influence thought; they determine it. If I step onto a commercial airline, seize control of the cockpit mid-flight and say over the PA-system, "We have some bombs!", do you think I mean to affect behavior? What if I walk up to a bank teller and hand him a note which says, "Give me all the cash in your cash drawer or I will shoot you in the head"– am I not predetermining an outcome? What if I walk up to a policeman, blood on my hands, and tell him that I've just killed my step-father? Will my confession influence the officer a certain way, and predetermine my fate and his responsibility according to the law? What if I walked up and said that the blood was from my attempts to stop a gang from murdering the mayor down the street? Again, will my words determine a set of responses that must follow my directions?

Why the barrage of questions? Because I am still struggling with the remarks of The Language Guy, whose essay, Language and the Abortion Controversy, is fully stuck in my craw.

Let me quote Mr. Language:

Implicit in the linguistic effort to force upon doctors the language "living human being" or even a less outrageous term like "baby" is a belief in the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, according to which language determines thought. There is no question that what something is called can influence thought (how could it not?) but it is a huge, easily falsifiable step to move to the strong form of this hypothesis that what something is called will determine thought about this thing.

I know this all seems senselessly academic. But it is important that we examine this kind of argument carefully. Mr. Language Guy, after all, is trying to determine thought–our thoughts– when he tells us that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in its strong form is "easily falsifiable." (And note that Mr. Language Guy, a self-appointed thought-policeman, offers no documentation that anyone is trying to "force upon doctors" anything, or how "easily falsifiable" the strong form is.)

If our schools were to refer to "gays" as "perverts", will certain behaviors be determined? If I walk up to a group of African-American inner-city gangmembers knotted together in a lonely place and tell them "You're all a bunch of lazy n-words," might my fate be sealed? And if I were to stand in Mecca and declare "Muhammad is NOT a prophet!" or in the Vatican and remonstrate against the Pope and his alleged Christ–well, you get the point.

But one last thing: Do LIES determine thought? For if lying does not determine thought in those to whom we lie, then we would all pretty much stop lying instantly, don't you agree?

And if a lie determines thought; if a lie surely influences behavior in those who believe it, then how about just one word, two words, three? "Gay" is meant to determine a certain outcome; "Homophobe" is spoken in order to strike a different outcome. Surely the language of Hitler's Nazi Germany led to certain behaviors affecting Jews, no? In fact, was not Hitler trying to pre-determine behaviors in his co-patriots with the repeated use of certain words?

A Dizzying Read

I am currently reading the wonderful book, Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell cites numerous clinical studies that pretty much destroy The Language Guy's cavalier dismissal of the "strong form" of the aforementioned hypothesis. A few examples will suffice.

1. One study shows that if you take a group of people and have them consider what it means to be a professor, and then give them a test, they will do ridiculously better on the test than a group which first considered what it means to be a soccer hooligan.
2. One study shows that when African-Americans were asked BEFORE taking a standardized test to what race they belonged, they fared worse than African-Americans who were not asked that question. Apparently, reflecting on their own race–with all the unjust associations with it–adversely affected performance.
3. Another study shows that if, during an experiment, you are exposed to images of aging and mortality, you will leave the experiment at a slower walking pace than when you walked in.
   
4. One study shows that if you are treated rudely before entering a clinical study (being treated rudely is part of the overall experiment, but the test subject does not know that), the subject is much more likely to be rude AFTER the experiment (again, part of the test) than those who were treated politely beforehand.

Of course, none of this PROVES that thought determines behavior. But it surely proves that thought influences behavior–dramatically. In fact, Blink's author is so impressed by the clinical data that he writes:

They [the clinical studies] suggest that what we call free will is largely an illusion: much of the time we are operating on automatic pilot, and the way we think and act–and how well we think and act on the spur of the moment–are a lot more susceptible to outside influence than we realize. [Blink, Malcolm Gladwell: New York; Little, Brown and Co., 2005. Page 58]

In other words, if you are what you eat, you are also what you read, hear, and think.

Propaganda, politically-correct speech, The Power of Positive Thinking–each of these attempts to determine behavior, even if those behaviors are vaguely understood or inaccurately predicted. Stern warnings to a child determine behavior; as stories of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny determine that a child will be excited on Christmas Eve or Easter morning. And abusive speech surely determines behavior: abused children are more likely to perform poorly in school, commit crimes, and abuse their own children.

So then, it is not without either clinical or psychological support–not to mention social and philosophical–that pro-life supporters refer to the fetus as a human being rather than so much tissue.

The Language Guy and the mass of blind propagandists to which he unwittingly belongs are wrong.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes – All Rights Reserved.

Tomorrow: Bill Bennett in hot water for using words a certain way.

Photo: Grasshopper on milkweed. Camera: Canon A2. Lens: Sigma APO 300/4 Macro with EX 1.4 extender. Film: Kodak E100VS Exposure: unrecorded. Tripod and cable release. Click on image for larger view.