Category Archives: Books: Fiction and Non-Fiction Alike

“Humilitas”: A Saturday Afternoon Book Review

Today, I would like to introduce the “Saturday Afternoon Book Review,” a new series highlighting little-known books that offer valuable and often challenging insights into subjects that are sorely in need of genuine theological reflection.  I begin with John Dickson’s 2011 release, entitled Humilitas: A Lost Key to Life, Love and Leadership.

As I recently made my way through this slim, yet highly engaging, volume on the subject of humility, I was struck by one overwhelmingly convicting thought.  This virtue, which in many ways encapsulates the “fruits of the spirit”[1] described by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians, has largely disappeared in today’s society.  As the secular culture continues to promote thinking and behaviors that veer dangerously close to narcissism, the modern church has likewise adopted a similar culture whereby successful leaders and pastors are often given a pass on this characteristic so long as they can skillfully construct a wide-ranging ministry that is financially robust and openly admired.

But the interesting thing about Dickson’s book is that it does not pit humility against success or growth.  Instead, it tries to make the argument that humility is often one of the most important characteristics of those people that have historically achieved the loftiest of goals.  In other words, while people seem to be able to construct “empires” that “succeed” over a short period of time, very few construct anything lasting or memorable unless they are grounded first by the belief that it is not the individual that matters.

What a clarion call in an Enlightened society and church that seems ever more interested in elevating the glory of the individual over the needs of the community.

[1] The fruits of the Spirit are defined in Galatians 5:22-23 as follows: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

“Modern Family,” the “F-bomb,” and Rise of Language in the Evangelical Sub-Culture.

In the interest of full disclosure: I don’t watch Modern Family.  I’ve seen it twice, and honestly, I just didn’t find it to be all that funny.  And if a comedy wants my attention for 30 minutes every single week, it needs to do more than make me snicker.  I want at least three good chuckles and maybe even – dare to dream! – some full-on, all-out, belly laughter.  What can I say?  The early years of the The Simpsons set an awfully high bar.

But today, I want to talk about a recent episode of Modern Family that first aired during “prime time” on January 18th.  It was called “Little Bo Bleep,” and near the start of the show, 2-year-old Lily, daughter of Mitchell and Cameron, unexpectedly blurts out the “F-bomb,” which was bleeped out for the telecast.[1]  The rest of the scripted show revolved around her parents humorously attempting to clean up her language before attending a church wedding.  Needless to say, their damage control is unsuccessful, and the wedding is colorful, to say the least.

Now this brings me to the point of this article.  Prior to the airing of last night’s episode, the Parents Television Council entered the fray by issuing the following public statement:

“It’s not suitable language for a child that young in the real world, and it’s not suitable language for a child that young on television, either … It is certainly in poor taste … The more we see and hear this kind of language on television, the more acceptable and common it will become in the real world.  Since television is constantly adding to the likelihood that children will be exposed to this kind of language, we will naturally see more and more children eventually emulate that behavior.”[2]

My point here today is not to debate whether a 2-year old swearing is appropriate or even funny.  And my point is not to debate the role of Christian watchdog groups trying to censor or shape broadcast media.  I just want to know who the Parents Television Council believes itself to be representing.  In other words, I just want to know whether there is any sense of consensus amongst modern evangelical Christians as to what the Apostle James means when he says:

“If someone thinks he is religious yet does not bridle his tongue, and so deceives his heart, his religion is futile.”[3]

To get you started on the discussion, let me introduce you to some research conducted by Dave Kinnamen and Gabe Lyons back in 2007.  At that time, they published an excellent new book entitled UnChristian, which sought to explore the behaviors and attitudes of those within the church as compared to those outside.  When it came to using “profane” language, they discovered that only 17% of older born again Christians[4] claimed to use profanity, while almost two-fifths of the younger Christian generation[5] claimed the same.  So clearly, there is an emerging trend within the church that seems to think that the use of “profane” language is acceptable.  But what I found to be really curious about their study relates to how both groups view the use of the word “fuck” on television. When asked to give their opinion on the subject, both young and old Christians alike almost universally rejected the notion that this would be acceptable.[6]  So while the younger generation appears to be more comfortable using “profane” language in their day-to-day life, they still believe in erecting certain barriers around certain words in certain contexts.

To me, this is absolutely fascinating, and I would love to hear more from those that read this blog regarding how they interpret that passage and how they try to live it out.  As for me, I don’t tend to use profane language in my day-to-day life.[7]  But that statement may not mean the same thing to you that it does to me.  You may be reading this blog and say to yourself, “I just saw you use the word ‘fuck!’”  And to that, I would say that I stand in partial agreement with the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther, who believed that words have power and that we neuter that power and even sanitize the concepts that lay underneath the harsh language when we opt for polite euphemisms.  So while I would not say “Fuck you!” to anyone around me, I also don’t feel that we gain anything by typing “f—” instead of the word that we are actually quoting.  For in doing so, I think we white wash the culture around us, and somehow fail to bear witness to it by refusing to reflect it back to itself.

But enough about me and what I think.  What do you think? Do you think there is any sense of concensus on what is acceptable language?  How do you use language?  Do you agree with me?  Do you not?  Seriously, I am really curious to know more.

[1] Producers report that Aubrey Anderson-Emmons, who is actually 4, was asked to say the word “fudge” during the taping.

[3] James 1:26.

[4] Older Christians are defined as those older than 41 years of age.

[5] Younger Christians were defined as those between the ages of 23 and 41.

[6] 93% of young Christians and 94% of older Christians were against it.

[7] Again, in the interest of full disclosure, that is not to say that I do not, on rare occasion, use language that I do not believe to be appropriate or in line with God’s call upon my life.  Interestingly enough, of all the things that I had to leave behind when I became a Christian, language was the hardest thing for me to bring under control.

Lisbeth Salander, Genital Piercing and the Dearth of Female Role Models in the Church

A few weeks ago, I picked up Scot McKnight’s new e-book entitled Junia is Not Alone.  Interestingly enough, the very week that I purchased his book, the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly arrived in my mailbox, complete with a cover caption that read: “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: How an Intense New Thriller Brought the World’s Coolest Heroine to Life.”  This, of course, got me to thinking.

Why would a magazine choose to describe Lisbeth Salander as the “coolest heroine?”  What is it about Salander that has fascinated us as a society?  What is it about her story that seems to ring so true?  While the theories abound, I think the film’s director, David Fincher, gives us a great insight when he describes how they developed Salander’s look.

“Trish Summerville, the costume designer, and I talked a lot [about Salander’s appearance].  Trish has some of the most beautiful piercings and little studs in her nose, but that’s jewelry.  By contrast, Lisbeth’s piercings – brow, nose, lip, nipple – actually look painful and self-violating.  We went back to that first idea of Sid Vicious[1] with a safety pin through his cheek and what it meant.  That was not a way of saying, ‘Look at me, I’m special, I’m different, I’m committed.’  It was a way of saying, ‘Get away or you’re going to get blood on you.’”

You see, in many ways, Lisbeth Salander, as first conceived by Steig Larrsen, represents the next step in the cultural evolution of the female archetype.  She is the post-feminist, warrior – the literary and celluloid sister of Lara Croft,[2] Buffy Summers,[3] Angelina Jolie,[4] and even the pre-pubescent Hit Girl.  But is that all that there is to her character? Is she nothing more than an avenging angel?  Again, Fincher and his team are right there to help us understand.

“She’s not an avenging angel.  We were never interested in that.  We never felt this was Dirty Harry or Death Wish.  She’s a person who has to deal with a lot of things …   Psychologically, she has to work on two currents.  One of them is saying, I don’t trust anyone, I don’t want to have anyone in my life, and I’m willing put on this garb that says, “Stay the fuck away from me.’  And at the same time, it’s almost as if she’s in agreement with what everyone has always said about her, which is that she’s trash.  She’s perfectly willing to look like refuse in order to be left alone.”

So who is Lisbeth Salander?  She’s the new 21st century female role model.  She’s a deeply scarred and troubled young woman, sexually aware, outwardly self-confident, inwardly bruised, and profoundly violent.  In many ways, she’s a male fantasy – a millennial Cinderella who, while awaiting her knight in shining armor, has the courage and the moxie to take on all comers.  Sure, she’s in need of rescue, but she’s not about to sit around twiddling her thumbs.

So with this cultural story as a background, I picked up McKnight’s new e-book, in which he lays out a devastatingly brilliant argument regarding the neutering of the Apostle Junia.  So well-documented and so airtight was his argument that I found it astonishing that we, as a church, have not heard more about the lone female apostle in the New Testament, a woman described by the Apostle Paul himself as being “prominent among the apostles.”[5]  Now I’m not going to bother you with the details of McKnight’s argument.  Quite honestly, if you’re really that interested in this subject, you should just pick up the book for $2.99.  It’s only 35 pages long; and it’ll excite your imagination in ways my reductionist summary never could.

But my point is simply this.  We know that the cultural story is a damaging story that offers little in terms of real hope for young women in the world today.  We know that sexualizing your body for the sake of marketing yourself isn’t the answer.  And we know that vengeance for all of the abuses suffered – both large and small – will never lead to closure or reconciliation.

But as McKnight so clearly illustrates, we also fail to tell a different story!  We make sloppy hermeneutical decisions to violate the text and propagate the false idea that Junia was a man.  We rarely speak on Hulldah.  We barely touch on Deborah.  In fact, about the only thing we tend to offer is a vision of the “godly wife” from Proverbs 31 – a vision that is often carefully edited to omit the fact that she works outside of the home,[6] earning her own income[7] even as she built a public reputation that is so sound, that it’s praised by the leaders of the community.[8]

It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum.  And I fear that if the church does not begin to seriously take up the task of offering a truly counter-cultural image of what a female disciple might actually look like, if the church continues to let silence be its guiding principle on this subject, than we are likely looking at a future where the vacuum will be filled – not by the likes of Junia, Hulldah, and Deborah, but by the likes of Lisbeth, Buffy, and even the young Chloe Grace Moretz – women left with no choice but to “kick ass.”[9]

Click here for a discussion on misogyny, Lisbeth and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

[1] Sid Vicious was the iconic base player for the seminal punk band, Sex Pistols.

[2] Lara Croft is the fictional main character of the Tomb Raider video game series.  First released in 1996, the character has become so iconic that it has spawned 11 video game sequels, two film adaptations, a series of young adult books and even a few academic monographs seeking to understand her influence.

[3] Buffy Summers is a fictional character first developed by Josh Whedon in a 1992 film entitled Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  While Whedon’s film was essentially dead-on-arrival, he resurrected the character in a breakout series starring Sarah Michelle Gellar.  The series ran for several years, and gave birth to a spin-off program entitled, Angel, as well as numerous non-canon material such as comic books, novels and video games.

[4] Angelina Jolie is an Oscar-winning actress who first came to international fame playing Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider series.  Although she has flashed serious talent in numerous smaller projects, she is most well known for playing the type of woman described in this article.  Films in which she is depicted in this fashion include: Gone in Sixty Seconds, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Wanted and Salt.

[5] Romans 16:7.

[6] Proverbs 31:24.

[7] Proverbs 31:16.

[8] Proverbs 31:31.

[9] One of the most shocking, and provocative examples of this new female archetype is represented by Chloe Grace Moretz in Matthew Vaughn’s film, Kick Ass.  Here, the young Ms. Moretz plays a 10-year old girl who is trained to be a killer by her ex-cop father, played by Nicholas Cage.  While the film was ostensibly about the titular hero played by Aaron Johnson, the phenomenon was built around Moretz’s breakout performance as a young girl, deeply scared, but able to take on all comers.

“The Help” (2011): A One-Minute Film Review

After initially being rejected by over 60 publishers, Kathryn Stockett’s The Help was finally published in February of 2009.  Since that time, this incendiary tale of the small and not-so-small abuses suffered by black housekeepers in the 1960s has gone on to sell over 5 million copies, as it spent over 100 weeks on the New York Times Best Seller List.

Set in Jackson Mississippi during the early 1960s, the film tells the story of Skeeter Phelan, a young southern society girl who longs to become a writer.  When Skeeter’s beloved housekeeper is suddenly dismissed under pressure from her mother’s society friends, Skeeter is concerned and begins to document the stories of her friend’s domestic workers.  As one black woman after the next courageously steps forward to tell her tale, the book begins to take shape, and a town will be forever changed.

My reaction to this film is somewhat hard to pin down.  On the one hand, I am always drawn to stories where someone has the courage to swim against the stream, and in so doing, brings justice to those that have been oppressed.  These are important stories to tell, for they remind us that change does not often begin in the corridors of power.  Change begins when insignificant people dare to speak prophetic truth into a world that is desperate for truth to be spoken.

On the other hand, movies like this sometimes feel “safe” because they are told from a distance.  Fifty years after the dawn of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, how many people would genuinely argue that black people did not suffer under white society?  So it’s easy to root for the heroes, demonize the villains, and feel as if  “the job is done.”  And there is a danger in that feeling as if the “job is done” because we are encouraged to believe that we can sit safely in the comforts of our own homes.

How much more exciting would it be to see a story set in the contemporary world in which someone dared to tell the story of the plight of modern day Native Americans or modern day slaves?  How much more compelling would it be to have to face our own complicit guilt in avoiding the issues and burying our collective heads in the sand? 

In the end, I strongly recommend viewing The Help, and dare you not cheer as Hilly eats the pie.

This film has been rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America for thematic material and language.

Marketing the Church into Oblivion

Earlier this morning, as I perused the usual websites I tend to haunt over my morning cup of coffee, I encountered a news item entitled: “Pastor Ed Young, Wife to Stream Time in Bed on the Internet.”  Needless to say, I did a double take.

Apparently, Ed Young, who is the Founding and Senior Pastor of the multi-site Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, has a new book to sell.  This book, which he co-authored with his wife, is called Sexperiment; and it encourages married couples to commit to having sexual relations every day for seven straight days.  Now please understand, I am not questioning a pastor’s decision to teach on the subject of human sexuality.  Far from it.  What I am questioning here today is the seemingly boundless lengths to which we are willing to go to market Christianity to a Modern, presumably disinterested, culture. 

Back in 2008, Paul and Susie Wirth released a book entitled, 30-Day Sex Challenge.  It was marketed with the tagline:

“Every man’s fantasy: 30 days of sex! Every woman’s dream: 30 days of intimacy!”

Now I want you to stop and look at that for a moment; and I want you to ask yourself: what is being “sold” and who’s “selling” it?  While I don’t know the sales figures for the book,  its basic premise caught fire, as it was used as the inspiration for many “challenges” delivered in numerous churches across the nation.

But as we all know, news cycles move on, and Modernity is always anxious to discard the “old” in favor of the “new.”  And so now, just three years later, capitalism once again rears its ugly head within the church, and two new books are released.  The first book, Young’s Sexperiment, promises to do in seven days, what the “old” book could only do in 30.  And as for Mark Driscoll’s book, Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together, it promises to tell you all sorts of explicit things, the likes and details of which I will leave for you to investigate.

Here’s the problem.  Not only are we, as Christians, caught in the lie that the “new” must be better than the “old,” we’re also caught up in constantly struggling to find new and “innovative” ways to market our materials.  If N.T. Wright goes on Comedy Central’s  Colbert Report, than Driscoll has to show up on Dr. Drew’s Loveline.  And if Rob Bell previews his book, Love Wins, with a catchy video, than Ed Young has to one-up him and stage a “Sexperiment Bed In.”  You read that right.  In an effort to generate some serious sales volume, Ed Young and his wife, are camped out for 24 hours on a bed on the roof of their church.  And you are invited to witness this live event through this link.

The question are numerous.  Where will this all end?  Is it even possible for this to end?  Or are we all caught up upon a wave – a wave that leaves us flailing about as we wait to be dashed upon the rocky shoreline?  I guess only time will tell.

You Know It’s a Good Book When …

Twenty years ago, in my senior year of high school, the English honors teacher, Mr. Jeffrey Naruszewicz, ended the class period by going around the room asking each us what university we were planning to attend.  When it came to me, I answered, “Wheaton College,” and assumed that he would simply move on to the next student.  But he didn’t.  Instead, he stopped, turned his head to look back at me, and said this:

“That’s a good fit for you.  Just make sure you keep reading books that piss you off.”

And then he moved on.  Now some might object to the “salty” nature of his advice, but truth be told, it’s one of the best pieces of guidance I’ve ever received.  Reading books that “piss you off” means you read books that don’t agree with your understanding of the world.  Reading books of this nature means exposing yourself to other ideas that are in deep conflict with your own perspective.  It means refusing to accept the construction of “strawman” arguments in favor of reading arguments by people who have a radically different worldviews.  In the end, reading books that challenge you means becoming a life-long learner as opposed to being someone who is comfortable in the mistaken notion that the world is easily understood and categorized.

Last night, as I began a new book entitled The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex is Too Important to Define Who We Are, I couldn’t help but think back to my old teacher.  He would be proud of my selection.  For this is the kind of book that is fearless in its orientation.  It’s the kind of book that is not afraid to take a very sharp blade to the throats of our sacred cows on both the left and the right.

Indeed, no sooner is the author finished slashing away at the “privileged status” of the heterosexual majority, when she openly assails the cultural belief that sexual desire can form the core of a human identity.  She’s looking at the right, she’s looking at the left, and she’s taking shots at everyone.  It’s an audacious book; and one that I suspect will earn its rightful place among my Top-10 books of 2012.

But that’s not really the point of this post.  The point of this post is to ask you: are you still reading books that “piss you off?”  Or have you settled into a genteel reading cycle where the books you read simply confirm what you already know to be “true?” 

“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” (2011): A One-Minute Film Review

Literary debuts don’t get any bigger than the Millenium trilogy authored by Swedish journalist, Stieg Larrson.  With worldwide sales of over 53 million copies, it was only a matter of time before the books would inevitably be turned into American films.  And when that time came, it was almost equally inevitable that David Fincher, director of thrillers such as Seven, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room, and Zodiac, would be the auteur of choice to helm such nihilistically, dark material.

So does the film work?  Sadly, that question is not as easy to answer as one might expect.  On the one hand, Fincher’s extensive experience honed over the past 26 years in the industry has taught him how to focus this story, which, in its original printed form, was a bit meandering at times.   Moreover, he knows how to frame a scene, and so, as one would expect, the film looks and sounds stunningly beautiful.  There is a raw elegance in the landscapes he captures that perfectly mirrors the hollow nature of the main characters’ souls.  And likewise, the brief, but shockingly potent, bursts of extreme violence are captured in such a way as to actually advance the storyline as opposed to being voyeuristic outlets for those that fancy the emerging genre of “torture-porn.”

So what’s missing?  The heart of the novel.  Prior to making its way across the Atlantic, the novel was published in Sweden under the name Man som hatar kvinnor, which translated into English means: Men Who Hate Women.  At its core, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is about misogyny on scales writ both large and small.  While Fincher expertly captures the larger, grotesque acts of violence perpetrated against women, he misses the small acts found in his main character, Mikael Blomkvist.  For you see, in the book, Blomkvist’s defining characteristic is his alarmingly, insatiable sexual appetite.  He regularly sleeps with every single major female character in the book, the likes of which include: a woman half his age (Salander), his married co-owner of the magazine he works for, as well as the married niece of the man who hired him to solve the 40-year old cold case.  But here, in Fincher’s film, he is only ever shown sleeping with Salander, which completely alters the meaning of the closing scene.

*** MILD SPOILER ALERT ***

When Salander comes to give Blomkvist a gift at the end of the film, she sees him walking off into the night with his colleague.  And the rage she feels isn’t merely the rage of jealousy, as it is in the film.  The rage she feels, in the book, is the rage of having once again been violated by a man who took advantage of her to satisfy his own sexual urges.  In other words, in the book, Blomkvist is among the misogynistic offenders who violate women by their casual willingness to sexually use and discard them.  But here, in the film, it simply comes across as Salander being jealous of a new lover, because Fincher never sees fit to show Blomkvist, the ostensible “hero” of the film, as guilty in his own way.

But this should not come as a surprise in American culture.  For ours is a culture that hypocritically glorifies the sexual promiscuity of men, even as it purports to uphold female dignity and empowerment as a national virtue.  So, in the end, Fincher’s curious decision to white-wash his lead character is not surprising, and yet, it is absolutely fatal to the film because it effectively neuters Larrson’s central message, and reduces the film to nothing more than a visually splashy who-dunnit shot in exotic locales.  And in a society that openly degrades women in the manner that ours does, this is a shame because Larrson’s core theme is one that could really have challenged people to think.

This film has been rated R by the MPAA for language, violence and sexuality.

“Calvin and Hobbes” and the Joys of Snow Sculptures

Genius comes in many forms, including a six-year old boy’s awesome ability to craft truly deranged and nightmarish snow scenes!  Oh, how we miss you and your beloved tiger, little man.

As for those of you who found yourself smiling from ear to ear, perhaps you can add this to your Christmas list.  Just click the picture, and it’ll take you right to the definitive collection on amazon.com.  Enjoy!

No Place for Truth and Reconciliation in “The Hunger Games” Trilogy … (part 4)

SPOILER ALERT:  I’ve been told I need to add a spoiler alert to these sorts of posts.  I’ve never really understood this practice, as I’ve always assumed that if I am reading something, I am going to learn something about the subject at hand.  Nevertheless, if you thought you were going to read this post and learn nothing about The Hunger Games, you have now been warned that this is not likely to be the case.  Tread carefully.

In this, my fourth and final post on The Hunger Games trilogy, I want to visit the concluding chapters of Mockingjay, the last book in Suzanne Collin’s best-selling trilogy.  For it is here that the author does her finest work; and it is here that the fog of war lifts to reveal the true worldview that has always lurked around the murky edges of the novels’ central story.  If you haven’t read any of my previous posts on the subject, I would recommend:

“The Hunger Games” Trilogy … (part 1)

“The Hunger Games” Trilogy … (part 2)

Thanksgiving, Indulgence, and “The Hunger Games” Trilogy … (part 3)

Now, assuming you have read the previous posts in this series, you know that The Hunger Games are a series of highly politicized novels in which the morally bankrupt people of the tyrannical government live out lives of hedonist luxury, lives that are built upon the unrelenting labor of the surrounding population.  In the final novel, Mockingjay, the masses have risen in open rebellion and the forces of the Capital are under constant siege.  Not surprisingly, a new government-in-exile has been formed; and this new government is at the forefront of the rebellion that is rapidly gaining momentum.

But then, late in the novel, when it seems that the rebels are about to win, everything goes horribly wrong.  Primrose, the younger sister of the heroine, and by far, the most innocent of anyone in this trilogy, is killed while performing an act of mercy.  What’s worse, it doesn’t appear that the Capital is behind the act.  Instead, the government-in-exile has committed this atrocity in the hopes of falsely accusing the Capital and providing one last rallying cry for the rebel soldiers.

So here, at the climax of a 1000-page story, the rebels are on the verge of victory, but the newly formed government is no more just than the government that is being overthrown.  And when faced with the opportunity to legally execute the overthrown President of the Capital, Katniss Everdeen, the heroine of the novel, opts instead to launch her arrow into the heart of the new President, thus choosing for assassination in the belief that no government will ever be just.  In the days the follow, Katniss is tried and eventually exiled back to the fire bombed ruins of District 12.  En route, she has this conversation with the new head of communications

The truth is, no one quite knows what to do with me now that the war’s over, although if another one should spring up, Plutarch’s sure they could find a role for me.  Then Plutarch has a good laugh.  It never seems to bother him when no one else appreciates his jokes.

“Are you preparing for another war, Plutarch?” I ask.

“Oh, not now.  Now we’re in that sweet period where everyone agrees that our recent horrors should never be repeated,” he says.  “But collective thinking is usually short-lived.  We’re fickle, stupid beings with poor memories and a great gift for self-destruction.”

If The Hunger Games is to be praised for anything, it is commended for its remarkably consistent worldview.  For whether they are in positions of power or in positions of subjugation, people are viewed as desperately flawed and prone to violence at the slightest provocation.  Interestingly enough, the author, Suzanne Collins, even extends this flaw to her main character, Katniss.  When she is given the opportunity to stand up against the violence that has been perpetrated upon the children of the greater population, Katniss opts to vote for naked vengeance that will be extracted by putting the children of the Capital through the same horrors that have plagued her and her friends.  What is particularly interesting is the fact that Collins does not make any attempt to mask this desire for vengeance.  There are no coy references to justice or “doing the right thing.”  This is all about getting back at the one’s that have hurt you; and your satisfaction is worth the price that others have to pay.

Is there room for mercy is this world?  Is there any room for redemption?   No.  There is not.  The only lasting value that stands in the world of The Hunger Games is the ability to survive amidst a never-ending cycle of violence and retribution.

And so, at the conclusion of this series, I amend my original recommendation.  If these books were to be read solely for the purpose of entertainment, I would advise against it, for there is nothing but loss, anger, and empty grabs for power.  The worldview is so dark that I fear a non-critical mind might absorb some of the “lessons” of fatalistic nihilism.  If, on the other hand, these novels are read with a critical eye, I believe they can be of immense value in terms of discussing the ethics of an increasingly hostile world that is caught in the very cycle portrayed throughout these books.

What do you think reader?  Can you find value in books that offer nothing but a critique of society?  Or must a good writer seek to provide a solution as well?

“Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help”

To a church that is increasingly defining its core identity in terms of mission and outreach, Robert Lupton’s new book, Toxic Charity, is going to read like a literary sucker-punch to side of the head.  As a veteran urban minister with 40-plus years of experience, Lupton has been given a front row seat to much of America’s charitable giving; and he argues that this giving is largely wasted as it “actually harms the people it is targeted to help.”

Why?  According to Lupton, the “compassion industry” is too often given the benefit of the doubt without ever being scrutinized in the way that we test other industries.  In other words, Christian charities are “almost universally accepted as virtuous and constructive” without anyone every stopping to ask whether the end product produces measurable change in the lives of those that the charities seek to help.

Of particular interest to Lupton are the short-term missions projects that come at a cost of two-and-a-half to five billion dollars annually.  For many Christians in the West, short-term missions are used as a way of providing a “life changing experience” for those that are involved, offering a strong sense of having “done the right thing.”  But the question is: have we done the right thing?  Is the goal of relief-based missions the softening of the participant’s heart or the increased quality of life provided to the recipient of the aid?  Lupton clearly fears that we lean towards the former; and as such, we are a creating a toxic missions culture that is not actually about the hurting and the lost. He fears that our efforts are, in reality, “diminishing the dignity of the poor, while increasing their dependency” upon both the church and external foreign aide.

But Lupton’s assessment is not entirely negative.  In the closing chapters of his book, he lays out a proposal for a new sort of “Oath of Compassionate Service” that would be modeled upon the Hippocratic Oath.  This new oath would be governed by six unyielding principles:

(1)           Charities are to never serve the poor by doing anything that the poor can already do for themselves.

(2)           Any unidirectional giving is to be done only in the case of extreme emergencies, when the abilities of local, indigenous communities are severely hampered.

(3)           Charities are only to invest money by lending it to the poor for the purposes of developing self-sustaining employment.

(4)           We are to subordinate our personal desires and needs to the needs of those that we are serving.

(5)           Local leadership must be actively developed and engaged, so that they can speak to the needs of their community as insiders.

(6)           Finally, any aide given must do absolutely no harm to the community itself.

On the one hand, I found this book to be enormously refreshing and it serves as a very necessary correction for some deviant thinking in the contemporary church.  But on the other hand, I’m not sure that I want to evaluate ministry in terms of efficacy or success.  The church is not a corporation; and we do not offer an “end product.”  Moreover, I’m somewhat concerned that a book of this nature could be used to justify an inbred-mentality within churches that are looking for reasons to believe that they do not need to engage in missional activity.  What do you think?