"The God revealed in Jesus Christ is far too generous. He gives His all in love for others, and expects us to do the same. Such a God is too demanding for most Christians.

"They want one that only requires a tithe. They sing about total self-giving, but in the end they would like to sing, 'One-tenth to Jesus I surrender, one-tenth to Him I gladly give—I surrender one-tenth, I surrender one-tenth.'

"Ultimately, they want a God who declares as an abomination all of those who offend their social mores. They don’t like the God who touches lepers, embraces Samaritans, declares women equals, and has the audacity to say to gays, lesbians, transsexuals, and bisexuals, 'Whosoever will may come.'

"They don’t like the God that is revealed in those red letters of the Bible because Him embraces those whom they want to reject."

- Tony Campolo

We had a house full of friends and family with us yesterday and over dinner someone mentioned Tony Campolo's book, "Red Letter Christians." Immediately, one person replied, "communist Christians?" and someone else thought the title referred to the red light district. Funny how the phrase 'red letter' instantly brings up different associations for people!

Well, here's the actual book, for anyone who may be curious and hasn't heard about it:

The term "red letter" is a reference to Bibles where Jesus' words are printed in red ink, so basically it refers to his teachings.

And here's the gist of Red Letter Christians; it's a quote from the inside flap of the book:

I want it to be known that there are millions of us who espouse an evangelical theology, but who reject being classified as part of the Religious Right. We don’t want to make Jesus into a Republican. On the other hand, we want to say loud and clear that we don’t want to make Jesus in a Democrat, either. ...But Jesus refuses to fit into any of our political ideologies.

If you've read it, what did you think? I'd love to hear your take on it.

Some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again.
- CS Lewis

JK Rowling

I just watched A Year in the Life of JK Rowling. And I loved it.

(If you're in Canada, you can watch it too at the above link. For all non-Canadians, someone please find a website where the rest of the world can watch it and send me the link!)

This documentary on CBC's The Passionate Eye takes a closer look at JK Rowling, specifically at her childhood and the process of writing the Harry Potter series. It follows her during the year she finished writing the last Harry Potter novel. It's a very personal and intimate look at her life.

I enjoyed it because it takes a special look at her inspiration and challenges as a writer. I was struck by the situation of pain and brokenness that led her to begin creating the character of Harry Potter and the battles he would fight. I was surprised by some of her fears and goals as a writer. And I related to some of the wounds she's suffered, like the loss of a parent, which went on to add depth and nuance to her stories.

Talk about heavy stuff!

But here's what made me smile: When she talked about failure. Yes, failure makes me smile.

Rowling summed it up in two satisfyingly frank comments (roughly paraphrased):

1) When wondering whether to sit down and write her first novel, she figured, "What's the worst that can happen? Every publisher in Britain rejects it. Big deal."

Hmm, I like her style. As a writer-hopeful, I'm the kind who'd temporarily forget my reason for living at my first rejection, nevermind my second. And third. Oh my! But hey, if she can handle a whole country worth of rejections, then so can I!

Here's the other thing she said (also roughly paraphrased):

2) "In order for some people to love the book, some have to hate it."

In other words, if you try to please everyone, chances are no one's going to like your work. I knew this of course, but it's always comforting to hear again. If you turn out a quality product and pour yourself into it, you'll inevitably have fans as well as critics.

So I'm feeling reasonably affirmed (again) that it's okay to have critics. The only thing I really have to worry about is whether I'll be willing to learn from the critics, even those who get up on the wrong side of the bed the day they read my stuff.

I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure - which is: Try to please everybody.
- Herbert Bayard Swope

I'm on a quest to read the classics -- both old and new. Want to join me on my reading challenge?

In addition to the Christian books already on my list (fiction, biographies, christian living, apologetics, etc.) my goal is to read the majority of the BBC's top 100 novels. I say 'majority' because a handful on this list hold no interest for me and there are just too many other good books out there that have been calling my name for years!

So how about you? Which of these have you read? Which are your favourites? Which ones do you really want to read? I'd love to hear from you.

And will you join me on this challenge? There's no schedule or deadline--just reading for pure pleasure and relaxation whenever you can fit it in. As for me, I'll be reading on my morning/evening commute on public transit, squeezing in the odd BBC novel between the other books I'm reading. Can't wait!

green "title, author" = I've already read this book

1. The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien
2. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen
3. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman
4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling
6. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
7. Winnie the Pooh, AA Milne
8. Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell
9. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, CS Lewis
10. Jane Eyre, Charlotte Brontë
11. Catch-22, Joseph Heller
12. Wuthering Heights, Emily Brontë
13. Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks
14. Rebecca, Daphne du Maurier
15. The Catcher in the Rye, JD Salinger
16. The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame
17. Great Expectations, Charles Dickens
18. Little Women, Louisa May Alcott
19. Captain Corelli's Mandolin, Louis de Bernieres
20. War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy
21. Gone with the Wind, Margaret Mitchell
22. Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone, JK Rowling
23. Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, JK Rowling
24. Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, JK Rowling
25. The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien
26. Tess Of The D'Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy
27. Middlemarch, George Eliot
28. A Prayer For Owen Meany, John Irving
29. The Grapes Of Wrath, John Steinbeck
30. Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
31. The Story Of Tracy Beaker, Jacqueline Wilson
32. One Hundred Years Of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez
33. The Pillars Of The Earth, Ken Follett
34. David Copperfield, Charles Dickens
35. Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl
36. Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson
37. A Town Like Alice, Nevil Shute
38. Persuasion, Jane Austen
39. Dune, Frank Herbert
40. Emma, Jane Austen
41. Anne Of Green Gables, LM Montgomery
42. Watership Down, Richard Adams
43. The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald
44. The Count Of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas
45. Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh
46. Animal Farm, George Orwell
47. A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens
48. Far From The Madding Crowd, Thomas Hardy
49. Goodnight Mister Tom, Michelle Magorian
50. The Shell Seekers, Rosamunde Pilcher
51. The Secret Garden, Frances Hodgson Burnett
52. Of Mice And Men, John Steinbeck
53. The Stand, Stephen King
54. Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy
55. A Suitable Boy, Vikram Seth
56. The BFG, Roald Dahl
57. Swallows And Amazons, Arthur Ransome
58. Black Beauty, Anna Sewell
59. Artemis Fowl, Eoin Colfer
60. Crime And Punishment, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
61. Noughts And Crosses, Malorie Blackman
62. Memoirs Of A Geisha, Arthur Golden
63. A Tale Of Two Cities, Charles Dickens
64. The Thorn Birds, Colleen McCollough
65. Mort, Terry Pratchett
66. The Magic Faraway Tree, Enid Blyton
67. The Magus, John Fowles
68. Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman
69. Guards! Guards!, Terry Pratchett
70. Lord Of The Flies, William Golding
71. Perfume, Patrick Süskind
72. The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell
73. Night Watch, Terry Pratchett
74. Matilda, Roald Dahl
75. Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding
76. The Secret History, Donna Tartt
77. The Woman In White, Wilkie Collins
78. Ulysses, James Joyce
79. Bleak House, Charles Dickens
80. Double Act, Jacqueline Wilson
81. The Twits, Roald Dahl
82. I Capture The Castle, Dodie Smith
83. Holes, Louis Sachar
84. Gormenghast, Mervyn Peake
85. The God Of Small Things, Arundhati Roy
86. Vicky Angel, Jacqueline Wilson
87. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
88. Cold Comfort Farm, Stella Gibbons
89. Magician, Raymond E Feist
90. On The Road, Jack Kerouac
91. The Godfather, Mario Puzo
92. The Clan Of The Cave Bear, Jean M Auel
93. The Colour Of Magic, Terry Pratchett
94. The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho
95. Katherine, Anya Seton
96. Kane And Abel, Jeffrey Archer
97. Love In The Time Of Cholera, Gabriel García Márquez
98. Girls In Love, Jacqueline Wilson
99. The Princess Diaries, Meg Cabot
100. Midnight's Children, Salman Rushdie

Defiant Joy: The Remarkable Life & Impact of G.K. Chesterton by Kevin Belmonte

Dr. Ravi Zacharias first introduced me to G.K. Chesterton. He quotes Chesterton often in his talks and seems to think highly of him. Since I think highly of Dr. Zacharias, it seemed obvious that I should learn more about Chesterton.

When BookSneeze offered this work to book reviewers I jumped at the chance. Well, at first the hair on the cover picture had me second-guessing, but then I remembered that I'd be learning more about the inside of Chesterton's head than the outside.

The author's intro was enough to hook me. Now I'm eager to pour over the rest of it. If you're interested in Chesterton's work but don't know much about it, keep checking back for updates. I'll post the best and most inspiring, thought-provoking quotes from this book.

In the meantime, check out this sleek blog dedicated to all things Chesterton: Chesterton.org

I loved this fun interview with Rachel Hauck, the author of Dining with Joy, which I finished reading last week:

I was first introduced to this woman over the radio, CBC Radio One, to be exact. Several days ago I was on the road running errands, and was listening to the CBC as I normally do when news of her passing, due to cancer, and an excerpt of her very last interview caught my attention. She was June Callwood, a famous Canadian author and activist, and the interviewer was George Stroumboulopoulos of CBC television's The Hour. I really was moved after listening to their interview on the radio; some of June's thoughts weaved their way in and out of my mind as I completed my errands, and came back to me when I returned home. So, I found the video version of this interview at YouTube and have posted it here because I'm really interested in your reactions to it.

In their conversation June and George touch on the nature of death, on preparing for it, and what lies next. Their interaction is so touching and involves issues so personal that I almost feel I'm eavesdropping on a private conversation between close friends. Watch the sensitivity in his eyes, and watch her eyes as well; I find that certain aspects of a person's soul just can't help but be revealed in their eyes as they consider human mortality.

Neither June nor George seem to have any religious beliefs beyond that postmodern ideal of subjective, personal 'spirituality', as far as I can tell, which makes the conversation all the more interesting to me. I honestly have to say, death isn't something I've thought to discuss with too many people, but it might be more interesting and less morbid than it seems.

June believes in 'dust to dust', and seems ready to move on. She speaks of planning for her death, and her 'to do lists' as she gets ready for it; she seems to have an enviable amount of humour left in her, especially for someone who is very aware of standing on death's doorstep. What really touched me was their conversation about her relationship with her husband of many decades, of the tenderness and special intimacy that enters marriage in the later years, of the priceless value of sticking to a marriage through thick and thin, and of having each other's well being at heart all the while. "Who's going to take care of him?" she wonders, thinking of her husband once she has passed away - it seems to have broken her heart, and it breaks mine as well. At the same time I wonder, why aren't more Christian marriages like hers?

"There's nothing next," she whispers thoughtfully, "and that's alright" she says, when George asks her about the afterlife. This really caught me off guard, actually. Asked whether she believes in God she responds, "I believe in kindness." I think back to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, (my recollection of which has become lamentably foggy since reading it 12 years ago), and wonder how anyone can believe in goodness, in conscience, and in right and wrong without taking that next logical step (in my mind, anyway) to finding the source of these things. I wonder what would lead someone to the conclusion that kindness will 'save the world'. Does the world really need saving if no God exists and everything is relative? What motivated her, as an agnostic or atheist, to spread kindness, love, and charity as far and wide throughout society as she possibly could? If she had met Jesus in person here on earth would she have recognized this - now personified - Kindness of which she spoke? ...And why did she evade his question about choosing not to have a funeral?

“I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charitable expenditures excludes them.” — C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), English author and scholar

My family's disability and unemployment dilemma has forced perpetual growing pains on us over the last three years, and the growth spurt seems to be going strong. The first year challenged my parents to come to accept that mental illness had indeed changed our lives forever. After much struggle they came to accept that unemployment would be be an indefinite reality in Dad's life. Meanwhile, my brother made the decision to sacrifice his own immediate goals in order to financially support my family. All four of us were faced with heavier stress than we had ever experienced, and began the long hard road through depression, fear, conflict, anger, grief, and illness - learning stress-management the hard way.

The second year brought into focus our family's fear of reaching out for help, even to friends and other family members. Our path took us to the verge of emotional breakdown before that line was finally crossed. I'm still scratching my head over it, actually, wondering why anyone in our situation wouldn't immediately seek support from family and friends! Maybe the problem has been passed down to us through our heritage: Families with a Mennonite background come from a tradition of hardship and hard work, and therefore might resist asking for help within family, friends, and church groups because it could be perceived as challenging tradition; it may lead people to allow pride or shame (or both) to prevent them from seeking tangible assistance. Or perhaps the problem is rooted in our political hang-ups: While there is a contingent of Mennonites across North America who espouse social justice ideals, there is also a contingent espousing economically conservative views who are vocal in their distaste for individuals or families who require any kind of social assistance, both formal and informal. This may prevent those in need from asking for help because they fear the ways in which they might be perceived or stigmatized as being lazy, abusers of the system, moochers, or thieves. A third possibility may be a distorted understanding of ‘humility’ and 'self-sacrifice' within our belief system that prevents those in need from asking for help, even in times of mounting distress. People may experience guilt from the act of help-seeking, believing that they must ignore their problems in order to help others. Well, whatever the reason, it's a problem that my family finally overcame last year, albeit painfully and under a heavy sense of defeat and failure. The road to accepting our current situation with grace has been a gradual one.

We are currently in Year Three, and our challenge this year has been to distinguish "need" from "want". We've sifted through our so-called needs, we've sacrificed, we've re-prioritized the usual commodities and self-indulgences that define the Western lifestyle, and we've learned to live on less. Even for a lower-middle class family such as ourselves there are things we can and will give up that will help those who live in extreme poverty. My brother and I have been especially challenged to re-evaluate Scripture's teaching on the lifestyle of charity and giving. We have a more intimate grasp of C.S. Lewis' statement above, that "If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, (...) they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charitable expenditures excludes them." How terribly counter-culture that sounds, what a distinctly inconvenient, imbalanced, and extreme statement - not unlike Jesus' incitive teachings on love and sacrifice. ;) Lewis' conviction rings true in us regardless of how long or how deeply we may have bought into our culture's ideology of self-indulgence, because our conscience has always known the right and only way to love our neighbour. There's life in the pinch, especially if we choose to live without the extras so that others can have the basics to stay alive.

So, it looks like year three promises to bring another series of difficult, life-changing lessons. I think I'm looking forward to it.

Photo: Romeo Dallaire
Source: pbs.org


Knowing something of Romeo Dallaire's story, I know that his convictions are born out of a first-hand, 'in-your-face' kind of experience with the horrors that humans are capable of committing against one another. This is why I sense the sincerity of his recent pleas to collectively arrest yet another tragedy in the Third World. What got my attention was the urgency in his voice (for anyone who heard him on televised or radio news) which was significantly different in tone than the 'urgency' we hear from various politicians or radical activists. He's warning us not to commit the mistakes of our recent past; he knows we're capable of letting that happen, but he also knows that there is still a ray of hope. Although, it must be frustrating, even infuriating, to try to reason with some of the world's top governments about an issue involving life and death, an issue that has exposed their hypocrisy in the past, and one that may very well do so again.

Retired Canadian general Romeo Dallaire blasted the U.S. and Canada yesterday for failing to rally the world and provide the political will to save people in Darfur. The reason so many people have been allowed to die in Sudan already, Dallaire told a Senate subcommittee, is simple. "There's no self-interest. Who cares about Darfurians? They're sub-Saharan Africans. They're like Rwandans."

"(It's) the fear of casualties in a country that doesn't count in an area that doesn't count," he said. "Not one of us is more human than the other. [...] Why did the Yugoslavians count when we poured in tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars? Why do others count and why do these Africans in Darfur not count?"

Dallaire also said it's not up to the United States to send troops to end the genocide in Sudan. "Why do you always want to set yourselves up?" asked Dallaire, who led the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Rwanda in 1994. "Why should you necessarily have to commit all those capabilities? Why can't the Chinese provide (soldiers)? They've got them."

Dallaire, who pleaded unsuccessfully for 5,000 UN troops to stop the Rwandan genocide that killed some 700,000 people, was hailed by Senator Dick Durbin as a 'hero.' "If more people had listened to him, maybe things could have been different in Rwanda. I hope people listen to him now." Durbin, a Democrat, chairs a new Senate subcommittee on human rights, a first for the country.

While U.S. President George W. Bush was quick to call the Darfur violence genocide, little has been done to quell it. The United Nations says more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million driven from their homes in four years of fighting, rape and plunder.

Durbin introduced legislation yesterday authorizing state and local governments to divest funds from businesses working in Sudan. He noted that Bill Clinton has said his inaction on Rwanda was the worst foreign policy mistake of his presidency. "Now that we have acknowledged for more than four years that this horror is happening on our watch, we must summon the courage and act to stop this carnage."
Canadian Press. (2007, February 7). Dallaire pleads to U.S. for Darfur. KW Record, p. ?.

~*~