Every Good Thing

A picture book published last September is scoring stars in all the children’s-book review journals: I Am Every Good Thing. The book celebrates boyhood—particularly black boyhood—as a radiance of joy and exuberance and possibility.

Words and phrases like “good to the core,” “star-filled sky of solutions,” and “perfect” overstate the case. Other thoughts, like “I am the tree that falls in the forest and doesn’t make a sound” are more puzzling than clarifying. But the truly disturbing page, near the end, shows our hero with an unmistakable halo. “I am what I say I am” is the facing text.

I Am, or I Am Who I Am—Does that remind you of anyone?

I can understand the need for a book like this. Boys have been medicated and castigated and exhorted to act like girls for the last twenty years or so; about time they are appreciated for the rambunctious risk-takers they are. Black boys, especially, need inspiration to grow into strong and capable men.

But I’m not sure that the self-affirmation expressed in the title is the best way to go about it.

In fact, I’m sure it’s not.

You don’t have to be convicted of original sin to see the problem here. The title is patently untrue. Boys are not every good thing: while lively and funny, they can also be self-centered, aggressive, reckless, impetuous, and thoughtless. (My five-year-old grandson is a lot of good things, but I could tell you some stories . . .) Both boys and girls lack plenty of good things, like maturity and good judgment. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature, the very definition of a child.

Now, wait a minute, the author and illustrator might object: we don’t mean it literally. Or maybe they do. I don’t know, and the casual reader or first-grader who finds this book thrust at him by his reading specialist won’t know either. If the intention is the build his confidence, this reminds me of the self-esteem movement that began in the 1980s. I call it sticker-sheet confidence, because it seemed to consist of handing out accolades like exclamatory stickers (Awesome Work! You Rock!!)

The Self-esteem Movement, as a conscious Movement, was gradually buried under a pile of evidence that self-esteem is not endemic to good character. In fact, it may actually be inimical to good character. Building confidence is not a matter of telling kids they’re awesome, but helping them along the road to becoming awesome. That’s a lifelong process.

And they’ll never be as awesome as a halo-crowned figure identifying himself as I Am. Assuming godlike status is not the key to success. We have it on good authority that that’s the road to destruction.

Is this a Great Country . . . or What?

All through my public K-12 education I learned popular anthems like “The House I Live In,” “This Is a Great Country,” and “God Bless America,” along with the old standards (“America the Beautiful,” ‘My Country, ‘tis of Thee”). By 1967, though (my junior year), such guileless flag-waving wasn’t cool. I gave a speech against patriotism to the Rotary Club—not too smart, but truth to power and all that.

Patriotism was an outmoded idea, anyway, the cause of unending wars when we had so many problems to solve at home. Racism, the Feminine Mystique, poverty, the military-industrial complex—what was not to complain about? Shortly after came Nixon and Watergate and general “malaise.”

But you know what? Life wasn’t too bad. Most of us had enough food (even though prices were zooming in the 70s), a place to live (with double-digit interest rates, if you chose to buy), the freedom to move around and find another job if you didn’t like the one you had (we did that a lot). My husband had acquired a B.A. degree at tuition rates we could pay off within ten years. That degree that allowed him access to a white-color job once he got the wanderlust out of his system. Our black friends were no longer segregated—that’s why we could have black friends—no more moving to the back of the bus or “colored days” at the State Fair.

Also, I started reading history, and decided this country was actually pretty great after all. A complicated past, to be sure, but with a form of government that allowed for self-correcting over time. There was plenty of ugliness, but also plenty of hope and upward mobility: more than any other nation in history, anywhere on the globe. I grew up in what would now be considered poverty, yet we always had enough to eat and a roof over our heads and free education that actually educated us a little.

But ever since high school, the only time a certain subset of people—which at one time included me—can speak well of the United States is when they are running for office. Then, it’s the land we love, even though it may have lost its way or forgotten its ideals or listened to the wrong people too long. All this great country needed was the right people to get it back on track. That was the vibe from Barak Obama and Bill & Hilary Clinton, though it didn’t always sound like it was coming from the heart.

Joseph R. Biden is different. When he talks about this great country, I think he means it, as someone who started from a humble beginning and achieved the nation’s highest office—“Only in America.” He’s an old-time glad-handing political animal who knows how to work a room but his Inaugural Address came from a genuine core, however deeply buried.

So I don’t get why he’s promoting Critical Race Theory, unless he doesn’t really understand it. The basic premise of CRT is that the United States is founded on racism (not a bug but a feature) and owes its wealth to slavery, all the way up to the present day. Biden has mandated “racial sensitivity training” (a euphemism for CRT) in all federal agencies and disbanded the 1776 Commission established by President Trump, calling it inaccurate and harmful. The 1776 Commission was intended to counteract the negativity embodied by CRT and the 1619 project, etc.—to restore some balance or to whitewash, depending on who’s talking about it.

I haven’t read the 1776 Report and can’t judge the whitewashing content. But I’ve read parts of the 1619 project and I think it’s both inaccurate and harmful. Has President Biden read either? Because if he has, and still buys into CRT, he can’t believe this is a great country. If the United States was founded on racism, what could possibly be great about it? The only solution is to dismantle our constitutional government and rebuild it from the ground up—which is just what some Critical Race theorists would like to do.

I assume that’s not what Joe Biden wants to do, or other patriotic Democrats. But it suggests that the deep division he wants to unify goes through his own heart (to paraphrase Solzhenitsyn). And through the Democratic party’s heart, and through the heart of America as well. If the USA is as bad as the critical theorists say, it’s not worth saving.

Just make up your mind.  

Nine Reasons to Read the Bible–Even If You Don’t Believe It

1. It’s unique.  The Bible Creation story is not like any other creation story.  The Bible God is not like any other God.  He’s the only ancient deity to link worship (temples, sacrifices, etc.) to a moral code.  He is absolutely central; a person beyond personality, not a representative of window or fire, not an idea, not a philosophy.  He escapes easy generalities, and so does his book.

2. It’s eerily familiar.  We’re always hearing echoes of it, not only in everyday conversation (broken heart, labor of love, thorn in the flesh, eye for an eye), but in values we take for granted.  Whatever our political persuasion, we agree that the hungry should be fed, the injured cared for, the helpless attended to.  None of these principles were widely accepted in the ancient world.  We believe—or at least we say—that love is the greatest power in the world.  Rameses, Nebuchadnezzar, and Julius Caesar would have laughed at that.  “Love conquers all” is the story told in the Bible’s thousand-odd pages.

3. It’s historically relevant.  Even if you’re skeptical about archaeology finds that support what it says about ancient times, the Bible’s influence on history is well documented.  Those who are certain it inspired oppression, crusades, and pogroms should turn over a few more rocks.  Though it has been misused as a weapon, the Bible is also (and much more logically) the inspiration for revivals, reforms, and rethinking. It directly inspired the greatest surge in literacy, enterprise, and empowerment the world has ever seen (i.e. the Protestant Reformation).  The Enlightenment usually takes credit for those achievements, but without the Reformation there would be no Enlightenment (and after the Enlightenment gleefully kicked away the Scriptural platform it was built on, it collapsed in something called the Reign of Terror).

4.  It’s a treasury of ancient literary forms.  Poetry, Historical Narrative, Allegory, Practical Instruction, Romance, Apocalyptic Imagery—every style and genre known to the ancient world is easily accessible between these covers, and in a multitude of translations, too.

5. It explains the origins of two of the most consequential people groups in the history of the world: Jews and Christians.  You may not like them.  Often enough, they haven’t liked each other. One was a relatively small group bound by blood and tradition, which had a wildly outsized influence on world history and a proportionate amount of suffering. (The honor of being a chosen people cuts both ways).  The second group is, by design, much more numerous and diverse, bound by faith and a conviction that God loves the world enough to die for it.

6. It tells one Story.  A rambling tale, to be sure–any tale would ramble if it took about 1500 years and at least 39 authors to tell it.  But the general outline of the story is the model for all stories in all cultures.  There’s a setting, a protagonist, an antagonist, a problem, a development of the problem, a climax, and a resolution.  Why do we tell stories this way?  Whether or not the Bible is the origin for the model, it’s a classic example of the model.  And the type of story it tells, of desolation and redemption, still haunts us.

7.  It provides the only objective reason for treating human beings as anything other than random accidents, disposable trash, or interchangeable parts to be manipulated.  The reason is this: the Bible is very clear that human beings are shaped by God to bear his image.  For that very reason, they are not to be willfully murdered (Genesis 9:6) or even carelessly insulted (James 3:9-10).  If the value of humans is set by other humans it can shift at any time.  If that value is set by God, no one can alter it.

8.  It’s the most banned book in history.  It’s too reactionary, too subversive, too authoritarian, too libertarian.  Tyrants fear its revelation of a rival power; anarchists, modernists, post-modernists, communists, utopians, and well-intentioned progressives hate it for the same reason. The book is a scandal and a trouble—aren’t you curious as to why?

9.  It’s still around. And still a best-seller. What explains its remarkable staying power?  Unless you are willing to at least become familiar with it, you’ll never know.

Cynical Theories: a Review

Have you read White Fragility or How to Be an Anti-Racist? Even if you haven’t read them, you’ve probably heard of them. I’ve heard from WORLD readers who are making a good-faith effort to examine their own biases by exposing themselves to challenging points of view from the Times best-seller list. I applaud the motivation, but some of those books should come with warning labels: Ideas produced in the hothouse atmosphere of the modern university may not be profitable for the real world.

So don’t read those without reading this: Critical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody.  Cynical Theories, by two academics who have been there, tracks antiracism to its source. Also radical feminism, post-colonialism, toxic masculinity, trans identity, genderqueerness, body positivity, fat shaming, and intersectionality. Even if you’re not aware of those things, they are aware of you, especially if you’re white, straight, and male. Or if you disagree with any proposition from the toxic well of Theory.

“Theory” is the broadest term for all the academic disciplines examining power and privilege. It’s rapidly expanding to embrace all the academic disciplines, including the hard sciences and mathematics. How did this happen?

It goes back to a sickly academic trend called postmodernism. Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida were major advocates of postmodernism, with its prevailing view that truth is socially constructed. What you might understand as a “fact” is actually a composite of points of view, inferences, and assumptions from your social strata. In fact, there’s no such thing as a fact. Truth is not just relative, it’s meaningless. The only thing that matters is power: who has it, and how they exercise it.

Postmodernism killed literature by divorcing it from any meaning the author might have had in mind and “deconstructing” it to uncover the underlying power plays. The disease soon spread to the arts and social sciences. When I first learned about postmodernism in the early nineties, it seemed a dead-end philosophy. That turned out to be true, but I didn’t suspect what might revive its gasping, expiring body. The salvation of postmodernism was Theory, which clarified its precepts, expanded its reach, and made it, not an academic discipline, but a Dogma and  a righteous Cause.

The precepts are these:

  • All knowledge is socially constructed, with language (“discourse”) as the creative agent. This includes the hard sciences and mathematics.
  • All knowledge works to privilege the identity group to which it belongs by race, sex, gender, nationality, or physical characteristics.
  • The identity group with the highest privilege are straight white males, who have successfully structured society to maintain their dominant position.
  • All other groups (and intersectional combinations of groups) are thereby oppressed.
  • The only remedy for oppression is to deconstruct white male privilege by making it stand down while other identities and “ways of knowing” achieve an equal place at the table.
  • If this set of propositions seems to lack empirical evidence, well, empiricism itself is a white male invention and thereby suspect.

Do you see anything that might need to be deconstructed here?

Like most social analysis, Cynical Theories probably overstates its case, but I found it helpful and illuminating. If leftist agnostics are blowing the whistle, we’d better listen.

Who Invented Writing? And Why Does the Bible Not Care?

From this . . .

The answer to the first question is, nobody knows.  It’s apparently a Sumerian invention, adapted by the Akkadians and picked up by all Middle Eastern cultures.  The Phoenicians get credit for developing the first alphabet (22 letters), but it was really a mashup of Egyptian and Sumerian.  The Hebrews weren’t far behind, and the Greeks invented vowels.  Most of these cultures had some kind of origin story: writing as the gift of a god or demi-god.  In the “Phaedrus” dialogue, Socrates tells of the god Theuth, who talked up his invention to the Pharaoh as an aid to wisdom and memory.  The King was not impressed; he perceived the written word not as an aid but as a crutch:

By telling them many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.

That’s a good description of pretentious windbaggery, and may be one reason why the Bible makes no mention of how writing was invented.  Nobody writes anything in Genesis.  In Exodus, there it is: Ten Commandments written by God himself and a Torah written by Moses (who was, after all, schooled in all the arts of a sophisticated culture).  Written words are a medium for the Word, but not, strictly speaking, the Word Himself.  (Remember, Jesus never wrote anything—recorded for us, that is—except some mysterious words in the sand.)

. . . to this . . .

While the slow and tortuous development of writing went on, God spoke—to Noah, Abraham, Jacob, finally Moses.  With the alphabet in place, he instructed prophets to set things down, not for their own erudition and proof-texting, but to let his people know what he was like.  Like all technologies, writing is a double-edged sword, though more subtle than most: by it we pass down vital knowledge, and by it we’re burdened with conceited pedagogues.

Writing is a tool, not a talisman.

Of course God knows that.  Knowledge is a means, not an end.  Writing is a tool, not a talisman.  It sets us free from immediate practical application and the limits of an individual mind, creates a place for the expression of ideas in a world of “things.”  It also makes us think we know more than we actually do, when what it’s actually doing is setting the table for genuine knowledge.  God doesn’t need it; his words endure even when no on

. . . to this?

e listens to them.  But our words are airy and fleeting.  Like rain, they fall and evaporate on the heads of our hearers.  Good words can bless, and evil words can hurt, but that depends on who hears them and what frame of mind they’re in.

Writing is our one shot at making our words endure past the hearing.  But the Pharaoh’s words to Theuth—actually Socrates’ words—hold just as true today: reading and understanding the content represented by a pattern of words on a page makes us think we know the content.  We don’t really know anything unless we live it out.  That’s why the Bible puts such importance on doing: “Be doers of the word, and not hearers [or readers] only.”  “He who hears my words and does them is like a man who built his house on a rock.”

Writing is a tremendous gift, no question.  I make my living by it.  Like all gifts, though, it’s not to be worshiped or exalted for its own sake, only for how it brings us closer to God.

 

What Is “Color”?

Close your eyes and count to three.   Then open them and focus on one stationary object.

Where’s the light coming from, and how does it reflect off the object?  Where are the shadows?  What is the object’s depth—could you calculate it in inches or feet?  How accurate do you think your calculation is?  How are you estimating it?  Would the object still be recognizable if you reduced it to two dimensions (in other words, if you drew it)?  Can you imagine how the object would appear if you are looking straight down at it from above?

Finally: What color is it?

Are you sure?

These appear to be questions about perception, but actually they are questions about philosophy.  In fact, one of the very first philosophy questions is, if we perceive the world around us through our senses, can our senses be trusted?

The “Problem of Color” has plagued both scientists and philosophers for centuries—or that’s what Mazviita Chirimuuta says, in a provocative piece called “The Reality of Color Is Perception.” At first the title proposition seems obvious: Why, sure.  Light reaches our eyes in wavelengths and the brain perceives those various frequencies as color.  But . . . does that mean there really is no such thing as “color”?  That color is not a real property of the things we see, but it’s all in our head?  Or does color consist of some objective quality of the light? What is color?

Scientific theories tend to lean in a subjective or objective angle.  Color is either a brain phenomenon or it’s a light phenomenon.  But there’s another theory, the “relationist” theory, that  sees it as both.  Janus, the Roman god of time, serves as a metaphor because he looks both forward and back—the two-faced god.  Likewise, color relates both to the objective world and to the individual mind.

Ms. Chirmuuta likes that idea: “This is a common thread in scientific writing on color vision and it has always struck me that the Janus-facedness of color is its most beguiling quality.”

She goes on: “Indeed, I argue, colors are not properties of minds (visual experiences), objects, or lights, but of perceptual processes—interactions that involve all three terms.”  In that way, color perception is the same kind of process as consciousness itself.  “[C]onsciousness is not confined to the brain but is somehow ‘in between’ the mind and our ordinary physical surroundings, and . . . must be understood in terms of activities.”

Let’s say then that color is mind, object, and light.  Three perspectives, one phenomenon that we associate with recognize lilacs, sunsets, oceans, autumn.

Consciousness is mind, world, communication.  Three perspectives, one process.  St. Augustine, without the benefit of an electroscope, defined vision as eye, brain, correlation.  Three perspectives, one capacity that most of us never think about.

Object, word, meaning.  Frequency, ear, music.  Father, Son, Spirit—is anyone seeing a pattern here?  Maybe I’m just being philosophical, but once you’ve adopted a Trinitarian Creator you see Him echoed everywhere.

In the comments section below the article, one snarky responder calls out “the arrogance of philosophers who don’t know their place as they are just pseudo scientists filling the valleys and cracks of ignorance until real knowledge makes them obsolete.”  As for that plaguey problem of consciousness: “all philosophy has to offer there is confusion as well which will try to persist after inquisitive scientists have solved that puzzle too.”

Might be a long wait.

Bible Challenge, Week 6: The Promise – Isaac

What’s there to think about Isaac?  A promised child, a near-victim, a weak husband, a gullible father . . . meh.  He fades into the crack between Abraham and Jacob. and we see very little of his actions, even less of his inward thoughts.  The defining moment of his life may well have been the instant when, somewhere around 15 years old, he lay bound on a stone altar gazing up at a knife held by his own father.  Trustingly? Fearfully? Incredulously?  Maybe all those things at once, and the experience could have scarred him for life.  But now he enjoys an eternal existence as one-third of the patriarchal triumvirate, the “Abraham-Isaac-and-Jacob that the God of Israel would identify Himself by.

It turned out okay for him.  However colorless he appears, being a vital link in the chain of God’s covenant blessing is no small thing.

 

Click here for the pdf download:

Bible Challenge, Week 6: The Promise – Isaac

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous: Week 5: The Promise – Abraham

Next: Week 6: The Promise – Jacob

Bible Challenge, Week Five: The Promise – Abraham

We like to say God has a sense of humor.  (Though I suspect it’s not like ours.)  He may also have a sense of irony, or why would a man who was childless until the age of 90 come to be known as “Father” Abraham?  But then, what seems ironic to us might just be a splendid dichotomy for him.  He loves shaking up the system: the younger supplants the older, the weak overcome the mighty, the last shall be first, and the meek (eventually) inherit the earth.  Likewise, a old man (75 when we meet him) becomes a major point person in our Hero’s quest to resolve the central conflict of the Bible.

Our Hero, remember, is God himself.  We’ve talked about our problem: rebellion, judgment, and separation.  His main problem is us: how to be reconciled to people he loves even though they reject him.  The answer will begin with one person; and from one person, one family; and from one family, one nation; and through one nation . . . but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

So here’s Abraham, great father and great receiver of a foundational covenant.  And here’s the download:

Bible Challenge, Week Five: The Promise – Abraham

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous: Week Four: The Problem – Separation

Next: Week Six: The Promise – Isaac

Bible Challenge, Week Four: The Problem – Separation

Something is wrong; everybody knows it.  The world is not as it should be.  Some great religious traditions look forward to a future when all our frustrated desires will be subsumed into a blissful oneness.  Others look back to a long-lost paradise and speculate on a leader (or system) who will return us to that ideal state.

Last week we talked about judgment, admitting (perhaps grudgingly) that God has a right to judge.  But there are times when his judgment doesn’t seem . . . well, right.  We can accept bad things happening to bad people (which doesn’t include us, of course).  That’s only just deserts.  But bad things happening to good people is the main problem doubters have with a supposedly “good” God.

The Bible meets that problem head-on.  It’s part of the problem, and no figure shows it better than the long-suffering, pitiful character of Job.  The man has a lot of complaints, and they seem perfectly reasonable to us.  But underneath all the apparent unfairness of the way he’s been treated, Job is most hurt about this:

I thought we were friends.  I thought You were on my side.  But now it seems I never knew You, and we don’t even speak the same language.  Is there anyone who can come between us? Or will we be eternally a universe apart?

Click below for the download:

Bible Challenge, Week Four: The Problem – Separation 

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous:  Week Three: The Problem – Judgment

Next: Week Five: The Promise – Abraham

 

Bible Challenge Week One: The Setting

(Today we begin a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.)

Every story has certain elements in order to be a story.  We often think of characters first–somebody has to act in the story, and there’s usually a hero, or protagonist.  Usually, though not always, there’s also an adversary, or antagonist.  And then, of course, something has to happen.  Some kind of problem develops, or a conflict arises, that the hero has to solve or resolve.  The plot develops around this conflict and resolution, working its way to a climax.

But there’s another story element that we often overlook, and that’s the setting.  In some contemporary stories, the setting is not especially consequential: it could be any modern city, or Midwestern small town.  But in historical fiction, or science fiction, or regional fiction, the setting leans in, shaping a plot that couldn’t take place anywhere else, or in any other time.  (I wrote about the importance of setting in great westerns on my other website.)

The Bible story also starts with setting: the heavens and the earth.  We often pass over it in order to get to characters and plot, but for this week, let’s linger and think about what the setting means for this particular story.  What meaning is packed into the very first sentence of the world’s greatest story?

Here’s the download for our first week:

Bible Reading Challenge, Week One: The Setting

I neglected to add a Key Verse to the download, so I’ll put it here: Genesis 1:31–

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Next: Week Two: The Problem – Rebellion