Three good books
Lit by Mary Karr — I hadn’t read any of Karr’s previous memoirs, but after reading Lit her two previous books have jumped to the top of my list (on Springpad and Amazon). Karr is a splendid writer, but it’s her life story that amazes most. The challenges she’s endured are astounded for sheltered me — abuse, alcoholism, wacko parents, destructive relationships (and that’s before college). The jacket calls it “learning to write by learning to live;” an apt description. I totally recommend Karr’s unvarnished (and at times quite funny) third memoir to anyone who’s up for a heart-wrenching story well told.
Freedom by Jonathan Franzen — Yeah, ok, I was a skeptic on this one. I mean, it was just getting so much press a few months ago. Franzen was on every talk show on earth, even before he made up with Oprah. And I’m always uneasy about a book being read by more than three people on the same airplane. But, thanks to my kind Pittsburgh friend Susan Rothenberg (thanks Susan!), I was sent a copy of Freedom so I could free my skeptical conscience from the Freedom media frenzy. And, yes, it’s a damn good book.
Character development: A. Gripping story: B+. Believable characters: A-. Epic cynicism: B+. Holds your attention for 500+ pages: A. Amazingly skilled look at contemporary America’s beautiful and contradictory freedom: A+. You should read it, even if it’s just to be like everyone else.
Feed by M.T. Anderson — My friend Kristin recommended this Young Adult novel and I ate it up for it’s dystopian look at cyberculture (plus, it’s a stellar YA story). Set some time in the future, the book imagines a “feed” that is implanted into wealthy people’s brains that connects them constantly to an Internet-like stream of constant contact and commerce. The feed is both exhilarating in its helpfulness and paralyzing in its ubiquity. I wasn’t drawn in the by the characters, really, but the treatment of technology, choice, freedom, free market, environmental disaster, and teen relationships is pretty amazing. This book is a must read for Internet and social media advocates as it pushes back vehemently on an overly utopian view of technology. If the “feed” is the direction in which the Internet is headed, we should be very scared.
Three good books. Now what should I (and readers of this blog) read next? Comment away…
On the blissful insanity of reading for two hours every day
In a recent Presbyterian Outlook guest editorial, pastor Roy W. Howard argues that pastors should read books for two hours each day. Howard, a friend of mine and former student of Fred Craddock, received such advice in seminary. Craddock told his students, often to their amazement writes Howard, that as “pastors they must set aside a minimum of two hours every day for reading.” Not the sort of reading for sermon preparation, but reading “informing the mind and heart.” Think poetry, short stories, novels, theology, Scripture and the like. This suggestion makes me, all at the same time, jealous, incredulous, hopeful, and angry.
First, however, let me say that I understand (in theory at least) that reading two hours each day could be very beneficial to ministry. Two hours seems like a lot, but it’s pretty close to the average amount of television Americans watch each day. And Craddock would much rather one’s ministry be influenced by short stories than short television commercials. As a literature lover, there’s nothing more blissful than imagining delving into the growing stacks of unread books on my desk. I’ve thought, several times lately, of taking a week away from the parish, finding a cabin in the woods, and simply reading. I get that such dedication feeds the mind and soul. I get that we can be spiritually empty and not realize it, that literature can fill us up in ways unexpected and glorious. I get it….but.
But, I’m not sold. But, I can’t imagine this working for me. Maybe I’m being held back by hard-headedness or simple jealousy, but I can’t imagine how my schedule could allow for two hours of reading each day (or 1.5 hours, since I’m 3/4 time). Howard notes that in response to Craddock, seminarians offered the expected excuses: “Many students gasped incredulously at their revered teacher’s counsel…with hospital visits and stewardship meetings, pastoral counseling and administrative leadership, local mission, youth fellowship and community organizing, how on earth did [Craddock] expect pastors to read two hours every day?” Here’s a few additional questions and concerns of my own.
- I’m guessing the answer would be “no,” but I wonder if Craddock today might allow reading blogs, news articles, technology websites, and long-form journalism as part of the two hours? Aren’t these essential to understanding the world today?
- Craddock, a preaching professor, surely was biased towards the pastor as preacher/theologian. But many pastors today preach seldom and really do focus on administration for huge portions of their day. Is the answer to read administration and leadership books, or to cut back on the two hours depending on one’s preaching duties?
- This point is harder to explain, but essential. I feel like Craddock’s advice assumes pastors have a particular moral authority and duty in one’s community to be informed, be people of the Book and many other books, to have a certain old school “I-am-a-wise-pastor schtick” about them. I think of an older time when, in many towns, the pastor really was the most educated and respected member of a community. These days, that is simply not the case in most places. So, again, I wonder how this might sway Craddock either to decrease the two hours, or maybe even increase it to gain back that cultural cache.
- Finally, practically speaking, with emails and texting, cell phones and Twitter, it seems like Craddock’s advice today would need to include moving to a room in which little technology exists. I don’t think he’d be cool with tweeting throughout one’s daily. I wonder if pastors need to make spaces in their studies — or away from them — for such reading to be successful.
Thanks Roy–and Fred–for the advice. I’m going to need to think on it a bit more. But, remember, I did read it in the Outlook….but then I reflected online.
image by Jim Larranaga
Thursday Mind Dump
I usually blog structured reflective short essays, but I’ve got too much going on at the moment. So, a change in form (Steve likes lists):
I’m excited and a bit overwhelmed that:
- Another article of mine was published in The Christian Century, (sorry no link, dead tree edition only). It’s entitled “Songfest: Challenges for a hymnal committee.”
- I will be the preacher for two weeks of Montreat Youth Conferences in early June 2011
- I will begin an eight-week stint blogging as The Christian Century featured blogger next week (site relaunch to come on their end soon, I’m told)
- I’m taking Comm 507: Communication, Technology, and Media at the University of North Dakota this semester
- I’ll be preaching on Oct 24th, with Dr. Martha Moore-Keish, at the 25th Anniversary celebration of my parents’ time at First Presbyterian in Tallahassee.
I’m grateful that:
- I have been at First Press Hallock for a year and much of the first-time craziness has worn off
- I just got back from a time of vacation and rest
- the food from Red Goose Gardens, our CSA, is so delicious
- I read Everything: A Novel by Kevin Canty – dazzling writing, gripping story
- Autumn temperatures have arrived
- Megan and I celebrated our four year wedding anniversary last weekend
I’m considering especially:
- if Minnesota Public Radio really means to announce their BBC Proms programming with the adjective “infamous” as in their frequently-heard advertisement this week: “the infamous last night of the Proms”–or am I just missing something?
- my first go at teaching confirmation and looking forward to using re:form
- how on vacation, I rarely looked at Facebook, and that was ok, even nice
- why pine nuts are so darn expensive
- race and how we speak of racism in American and reading White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privilidged Son by Tim Wise and Why are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? by Beverly Daniel Tatum.
image by Fred Fokkelman
The "E" Word
I’ve never been much of an evangelist. Actually, I’m quite against most traditional forms of evangelism. So it’s been interesting for me to participate in the Thompson Scholar seminar at Columbia Seminary this week entitled, “Evangelism for the Rest of Us.” I’ve quite enjoyed the conversation thus far.
To guide our conversation, we were to read Martha Grace Reese’s book, “Unbinding the Gospel.” I also read Brian McLaren’s, “A New Kind of Christianity,” George Hunter III’s “A Celtic Way of Evangelism” and skimmed Bill Hybel’s “Just Walk Across the Room.” I may review some of these in the future — actually, I know I’ll review McLaren.
The evangelism discussion is still very much in-process for me at the moment, but I wanted to put out a few bullet points and see if the blogosphere had some comments:
- Christendom churches just expect people will come to their church if it is attractive enough, but this model just isn’t true anymore (if it ever was).
- Though Evangelism Committees keep coming up in discussion at the seminary — usually because they’re quite problematic, actually — this makes me consider the committee structure in our congregation. There is no committee that focuses on issues not directly related to those who attend worship often. This is a problem, but I also think we have too many committees!
- A primary question to answer for yourself is: what difference does it make if people are Christians?
- Prayer is a good way to start pretty much anything, especially evangelism or “sharing the good news.” I know I could totally work on my personal prayer life, and I bet I’m not the only one in our congregation.
- I wonder if the life cycle of some congregations, if a focus on evangelism could actually be a bad idea. If the body isn’t comfortable in its own skin, it might not be time to invite more folks in to rock the boat. Of course, this can be a catch 22.
- Also, I have a million questions on evangelism in rural communities. What of sheep stealing from other churches? How things are interpreted in the community is huge and would need to be an integral part of the conversation.
More later, for certain. But there’s a few bullets for thought for now.
2010 Worship Books and More
The blog has been a bit quite in recent days, and will remain so as — if the snow doesn’t foul things up too much — I will on taking vacation next week. I do wonder, though, what books you might recommend for the new year.
Specifically, I’m leading a workshop in February entitled, “Worship and Welcomes the Spiritually Hungry.” And the organizers of the event and looking for books that include good thoughts on welcoming worship, how to make your space and service hospitable, how to be open to those unchurched, that sort of thing. So, what books should we be sure to have available at the bookstore?
And, while we’re at it, what books would you recommend in general? What was your fav book of 2009?
Page 50, here I come
I have a long list of books I’d like to read. Unfortunately, the one I’m currently reading is proving less than impressive. Looking back, I should have known this before I bought it because it has three tell-tale signs of sketchy books.
1) Bullets. Flipping through I now see lists and lists of bullets; several per chapter. How did I miss this before?! Bullets work for political talking points, perhaps, or for giving quick and varied support for an issue that must be argued quickly, but bullets in a professional book are a bad sign. Bullets say, “I didn’t take the time to fully think this through, but here it is anyway.” Or, “I can’t really support my argument, but here it is one measly sentence.”
2) No footnotes. Sure, footnotes can be cumbersome (though always better than endnotes). But a professional book on religion, theology, and pastoral care should have footnotes. Where are your ideas coming from? Where can I go for more information? Lack of footnotes also signals lack of an editor. I don’t understand how the author of the book I’m currently reading gets away with quoting another author or work without giving a full citation. “John Doe says in her book, ________” without a footnotes, is neither scholarly nor acceptable.
3) Quote chunks. On every few pages of the book I find huge chunks, several paragraphs, taken from somebody else’s work. It feels like the author just googled then copy and pasted into his book and called it good–and didn’t even footnote! Writing a new book means presenting a new argument, supported by others’ work certainly, but not simply a bringing-together of strong paragraphs from better books. Ridiculous.
Why am I still reading the book, if it’s so bad? I’m not quite sure. I have a rule that if I don’t like a book after 50 pages I don’t have to finish it (books for class excepted, of course). There are too many good books in the world to waste one’s time with the bad. I’ve only gotten to page 41 of my current blunder. Page 50, here I come.
photo by hisks
Reading Lolita in Woolworths
Woolworths, a huge retail franchise in the UK recently pulled a product: the Lolita bed for young girls. Here’s the article: Staff at Woolworths baffled by fuss over the little girl’s bed called Lolita.
For those less book-inclined, Lolita is the eponymous title of Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel describing the sexual obsession of a step-father with his 12 year-old step-daughter. “Lolita” has since become a sort of code-name for a child who is attractive to pedophiles. So, it doesn’t take a marketing genius to deduce: Lolita is perhaps the world’s worst name for a child’s bed.
How about naming sleeping pills “Kevorkian,” ballot-counting machines “Florida specials,” or supposedly good computers “PCs.”
So now that the press is on the story, there’s TV specials on the surge of age-inappropriate products (I do think the kid pole dancing kit crossed the line) and opinion columnists are weighing in. Here’s my reflections of a different sort.
1) Can we expect business and marketing majors to know literature? I majored in English at a strong liberal arts college, but didn’t read Lolita until last year (admittedly, I knew of the novel for years). I’m going to make a guess here, but aren’t major retailers employing folks with marketing, business, or finance-related degrees who would have had few if any university English courses? If ever there was a day when businesswomen and men could be expected to have read all the classics, that day is past.
2) I have no idea how big companies work, but shouldn’t there be someone in an office somewhere making sure these things don’t happen? Call the position the Cultured Commonsense Coordinator. That person would compile lists of bad product names–like Lolita–and kill offensive products before they go to market and embarrass the company. With the internet, this would not be a difficult job.
3) The Times reported the good folks at Woolworths had to look “Lolita” up on Wikipedia before they understood the firestorm of protests and boycotts. Perhaps more interesting, however, is that the biggest organized protest began on a blog. The web has empowered the modern consumer in ways unthinkable twenty years ago. Consider this post by a theology post-grad. It’s a blog post, but it’s huge free advertising for the products he’s sharing–speaking of, I’d love his camera wrap. Companies who aren’t up to speed on the Web 2.0 world will be left behind.
Yep, Woolworths made a hugely embarrassing mistake. Perhaps they should next consider a new line of products supporting reading. Call them, maybe, books.
Connect Online
