Scattered Ramblings on Loving One's Neighbor and Relationships

III Maccabees is about the attempt by King Ptolemy IV Philopator in the late third century B.C.E. to obliterate the Jews of Egypt, and God's deliverance of the Jews.  In the course of this plot, God messes with Ptolemy’s brain, such that Ptolemy says to his friends who are participating in the plot: “In fact you would have been deprived of life instead of these [Jews], if it were not for an affection arising from our nurture in common and your usefulness” (III Maccabees 5:32 NRSV).  Ptolemy out of the blue is telling his friends that he would execute them, if not for the affection that he has towards them on account of their growing up together, and also their usefulness.

This is actually a pretty profound passage.  I would not say that it is completely right, but there is some truth in it.  It is understandable that people would feel some affection towards those with whom they’ve grown up or have had a shared history.  That doesn’t always happen, but it does happen.  Familiarity can breed contempt, but it is also a factor in friendship.  And don’t underestimate usefulness!  Some librarians at a public library were rude to me one day, and I fantasized about taking over the library and firing them.  The problem, within my fantasy, was that I would then have to find other people to learn the ropes.  I asked myself: Why not stick with those who already know the ropes?  So the librarians kept their jobs in my fantasy.  I still gave them a stern lecture, though!

III Maccabees also explores the attitudes of the non-Jews in Egypt towards the Jews’ persecution.  Many were reveling in it.  Part of that may have had to do with the non-Jews’ cruelty, and part of it related to a sincere belief that the Jews were a danger to the country, that the Jews were strange, clannish, and misanthropic in their approach to outsiders, and that the Jews may join the enemies of Ptolemaic Egypt in a war.  These non-Jews either explained away or did not pay attention to the times when Jews were loyal to the Ptolemaic realm.

III Maccabees 4 is rather jarring.  III Maccabees 4 depicts old men, young men, new brides, and new bridegrooms being taken to their destination of death, and many non-Jews did not look at them with pity.  Here these non-Jews were, looking at fellow human beings, like themselves, being brutally handled and taken to their deaths, and they did not feel any compassion.  It was ironic that I read this passage after watching a miniseries about the rise of Hitler, in which Robert Carlyle (of Once Upon a Time) played Hitler).  But I thought about a scene in another movie, Schindler’s List.  Schindler was riding horses with one of his girlfriends, and he saw Jews being rounded up.  Among the Jews was a little girl dressed in red.  That caught Schindler’s attention and set him on the path of wanting to save as many Jews as he could from the Holocaust.  Not all Germans had that reaction, however.  Schindler’s girlfriend did not want to see the Jews being rounded up.  A number of Germans rejoiced at it.

We do not know everybody, but hopefully we can respect the common humanity that we share with other people, including those we don’t know, and that can bring about compassion within us.
I was reading a post recently, though.  It was on the web site Prayer Coach, and the post was about loving one’s neighbor.  The author was saying that love for neighbor was about more than helping people, but it involved getting to know them.  Getting to know them is part of our love for God, for it allows us to appreciate the piece of Godself that God put into them.  And the interaction enables us to identify what exactly we believe about God: “As we get to know others we test what we actually believe about God. Do we feel we can comfort others, or do we remain silent when others are hurting (2 Corinthians 1:4)? Do we believe we are accepted in our weakness, or do we hide our faults for fear of being rejected (2 Corinthians 12:9)? Do we believe in God’s protection, or do we refuse to forgive others when they hurt us (Colossians 3:13)?”

I can easily get defensive about what this post says on account of my shyness, my introversion, and my Asperger’s Syndrome.  But, in applying this post, I do not have to beat myself up for not interacting with everyone, as if God will not love me if I do not.  But I can be encouraged to see God’s greatness in the make-up of human beings, to remember that all people have a story, and, if I can summon the nerve or the right things to say, to listen to their stories. I can do this through reading and also social interaction.

I can also identify with what the post said about how our interactions can reveal what we truly believe about God.  I am sometimes afraid that, if I interact with others, I will fall short spiritually.  I am not saying that I fear others would contaminate me with their worldliness, but that I fear falling short—-that I will become impatient with someone, or unforgiving, or desire to leave the relationship.  Better not to start the relationship in the first place, I think to myself.  Then I won’t fall short spiritually!  What does that reveal about what I think about God?  That God is a perfectionist who will not accept me if I make mistakes, or find that I have difficulty coping with a relationship.

That brings me to something else that III Maccabees says.  III Maccabees 5:13 calls God “him who is easily reconciled” (NRSV).  The story of III Maccabees is so-so, maybe even a bit odd, but some of its jewels are in its incidental statements.  God is easily reconciled.  Imagine that!

Book Write-Up: The Thrill of Hope, by Bruce Green

Bruce Green.  The Thrill of Hope: A Commentary on Revelation.  Bowie, Texas: Start2Finish Books, 2014. ISBN-10: 1941972179. ISBN-13: 978-1941972175.  See here to purchase the book.

The Thrill of Hope is a thought-provoking book about the Book of Revelation.  Its author, Bruce Green, is part of the Tenth Street Church of Christ in Opelika, Alabama.  I do not know much about the Tenth Street Church of Christ, but I am vaguely familiar with the Churches of Christ’s teachings about prophecy, on account of friends and acquaintances who are part of the Church of Christ, and also books that I have read, such as a book of Guy Woods’ answers to questions about the Bible.  I was curious to learn more about how a Church of Christ devotee would approach specific passages in the Book of Revelation.

My understanding is that the Church of Christ maintains that Revelation primarily concerns the first century C.E., even though they acknowledge that it has lessons that are relevant to subsequent generations of Christians.  My understanding is also that the Church of Christ does not interpret the millennial reign of Christ literally.  I do not know if Churches of Christ would accept the labels of preterist (or at least partial preterist) and amillennial, but my impression is that they fit these categories.  I wanted to read Green’s book, not only to see how a Church of Christ person would interpret specific passages in Revelation, but also to read ideas about how I can approach Revelation as a Christian.  I have not known what to do about passages in Revelation that seem to suggest that Christ is coming soon, or quickly, now that we are about two-thousand years after the Book of Revelation was written.  Did the Book of Revelation make a prediction that did not come to pass—-that Christ would return in the first century?  I am aware that Church of Christ people tend to interpret “soon” in the Book of Revelation literally, so I was interested in learning more about such a position.

Bruce Green’s book did not disappoint.  His argument is that the Book of Revelation is about God’s historical judgment of the Roman Empire.  According to Green, Christ’s coming in Revelation is not how a number of Christians interpret it.  Rather, Christ’s coming in that book is about Christ coming in judgment against Rome, since coming in Scripture can refer to God coming in judgment (at various points in history).  Moreover, for Green, the kingdoms of the world becoming the kingdoms of Christ in Revelation 11:15 is not about Christ coming to earth to rule and create an earthly paradise, but rather is the manifestation of Christ’s already reigning kingdom.  Green refers to passages in Revelation that appear to suggest that Christ is already reigning (1:5; 2:26-27; 3:21), and he contends that Christ manifested this kingdom—-or brought it near in proximity—-by justly punishing Rome.  Green likens Christ’s kingdom to a submarine, which is underwater but sometimes manifests itself by coming above water: Christ’s kingdom already existed in the first century, but it came near when Christ exacted judgment against Rome.  What about the rewards of the righteous and the punishments of the wicked that are promised in Revelation?  Green affirms that the righteous who resisted Rome will receive everlasting bliss and that the wicked who sided with Rome will go to the lake of fire.  But Green also maintains that Revelation was promising temporal blessings to the faithful Christians.  Things historically got better for Christians after the death of Domitian, Green notes.  Green also interprets the new heavens and the new earth in light of the Great Commission to spread the Gospel.

I should add that Green interprets a significant amount of Revelation symbolically, as representing such things as Rome, the church’s witness against it, and Christ’s judgment of it.  Green notes that the Greek word esamenen in Revelation 1:1 relates to the Greek word for symbol, and so he concludes that Revelation is a book of symbols of what would soon occur.  Let me also say that I was impressed that Green addressed questions one might ask regarding his position.  For example, did Christ truly judge Rome in the first century, when the Roman Empire continued to exist for a few centuries longer?  That is an excellent question, and I admire Green for addressing it.

I am not entirely convinced by Green’s arguments.  First of all, Revelation seems to me to be part of the apocalyptic tradition, and my impression is that apocalyptic literature often forecasts a near end, followed by paradise.  Why would Revelation be any different?  Second, the statement in Revelation 11:15 that the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of Christ seems to me to concern more than people seeing Christ’s justice against Rome: they appear to describe a transfer of authority over the world’s kingdoms from the world to Christ.  While Revelation may acknowledge that there is a sense in which Christ rules now, that does not preclude that it was also hoping for a time when Christ would rule more fully, over earth.  And, third, looking at other uses of the Greek verb semaino in the New Testament, it does not necessarily concern using symbols, but communication, or indicating something (see John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19; Acts 11:28; 25:27).  I acknowledge that Revelation has its share of symbols, though.

Green’s book is still thought-provoking, and it draws from respected scholars (e.g., N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, etc.).  I appreciated Green’s insights, particularly his story about how he used to judge certain Christians as lukewarm but came to view them sympathetically with maturity.  Green also made a lot of references to movies, television shows, music, and literature, and that enhanced the book.  His story at the end about Aretha Franklin appearing to comfort Billy Preston while they were rendering “O Holy Night” was moving, and Green told the story in an obviously heart-felt way.

The publisher sent me a review copy of this book through Bookcrash, in exchange for an honest review.

Working with Who We Are?

I was reading III Maccabees recently.  III Maccabees is about the attempt by King Ptolemy IV Philopator in the late third century B.C.E. to obliterate the Jews of Egypt.  But the king has a miraculous change of heart and turns against his advisers who suggested such a plan.

How III Maccabees depicts this change of heart is rather odd.  There is nothing natural about it.  The king does not have an epiphany in which he realizes that he was wrong and why.  He just changes out of the blue.  Moreover, he doesn’t seem to take any personal responsibility for his anti-Jewish policy.  He just blames his advisers.

Josephus tells a similar story in Against Apion 2.53-55, only Josephus’ story has a different Ptolemy and is set later in history, during the time of Antony and Cleopatra (and the latter plays a significant role in Josephus’ story).  In Josephus’ story, though, the king of Egypt does not change his mind out of the blue.  Rather, there are two factors that influence him to abandon his plot against the Jews.  First of all, he sees a ghost who warns him not to hurt the Jews.  And second, his beloved concubine persuades him not to continue with his plan, and he changed his mind in response to her.

Josephus’ version of the story makes more sense to me, in this respect.  I think that God works with who we are rather than magically changing us out of the blue.

Would Calvinists disagree with me on this, with their belief in irresistible grace, and their notion that human beings are so sinful that they by themselves cannot seek God and thus need their hearts to be regenerated?  I wouldn’t be so sure.  They believe that God changes the heart, but they also believe that God uses means: the preaching of the word, for example.  In addition, I doubt that they would portray conversion the way that III Maccabees depicts it: as the king suddenly wondering what is going on and castigating his advisers for a policy that he himself helped institute.  My impression is that, for Calvinists, there is some continuity between the pre-Christian human being and the Christian human being: the Christian human being, however, sees things differently.

Loving the Bitter and Healing

At my church, we have a guest speaker once a month from a charity that we are helping.  Today, the guest speaker was from a children’s mission in Peru.  He has spoken to us before.  I wrote about the time that I first heard him speak in my post here.  The story that he told us today sounded like the story that he told us the two other times that I heard him speak.  It’s about a little girl who was bitter and angry, and the staff learned why: because she saw her own mother bleed to death, and her father ditched her.  She is in college now and is still angry with her father, but the man who spoke to us today said that he told her that she can only love if she forgives.

The speaker also made the point that only Christ can heal people’s emotional wounds.  He said that the mission has trained psychologists, but even they will admit that they themselves do not have the power to heal anyone emotionally.  Only Christ can do that.

The speaker’s remarks were challenging and thought-provoking, just as they were to me when I heard him speak those other two times.  I have a couple of thoughts:

1.  Usually, this man’s remarks make me feel bad because I am not good at loving bitter people.  I remember going through a curriculum, Henry Blackaby’s Experiencing God, and Blackaby told the story of how he chose to pour out love on a bunch of anarchists.  Blackaby related that the love that he showed them as he listened to them made him more loving towards the next person he encountered.

Okay, that’s fine.  But what if a bitter person is attacking you and your friends with her words?  What if she is essentially burning your bridges for you?  Are you obligated to stay in a relationship with that person?  “But Jesus would,” many Christians may respond, even though they themselves turn right around and make their own love of others conditional.  I respect and admire those with the strength and wisdom to reach out to bitter people.  I, however, struggle and fail to do so, at least unconditionally.  I expect bitter people in my life to be polite and to behave themselves like we are all expected to do in this society.  But that does not always happen.  Not all wounded people are like hurt puppies who get better with a little love.  They have their thoughts, feelings, and talents, such as shredding people with their words and poking holes in people’s arguments, and some get defensive when anyone expresses disapproval of what they are doing.  I struggle enough to love people in general, but bitter people?  I can’t say I deserve any merit badges there!

So where do I go from here?  I’ll probably keep on doing what I have been doing.  I’ll try to show love, but, if a person gets out of hand, I’ll leave that person in the hands of those who are more competent to deal with him or her, while I keep my distance.  Christlike?  I don’t know.  Jesus did die for us while we were yet sinners and hung around with the disreputable.  But I don’t think that he surrounded himself on a daily basis with bitter people who were continually tearing him down.  Okay, well, there were the religious leaders, but he wasn’t around them all the time.

And even if Jesus would stick around with a bitter person, yeah rah, Jesus, but that doesn’t mean that I have the ability to do so, with my insecurities.

2.  Can only Christ heal?  To be honest, I don’t know.  I do know that finding healing is not easy.  I struggle with Jesus’ commands regarding forgiveness, especially his statement that God won’t forgive us if we don’t forgive others.  How can I just forget the pain from the past?  It’s part of who I am.  I think that God asks the impossible.  I find that, for me personally, praying helps me to cope with painful memories.  It does not completely take them away, however.  I think that therapists can be helpful in suggesting an alternative way to look at things, though.

So where do I go from here?  Well, I can try to put the past behind me.  Some days I will be more successful than other days.  I can also try to treat everyone with love and respect—-and by that I do not mean making them a prominent part of my life, necessarily, but rather not doing harm—-not talking about them in a gossipy fashion behind their back (talking about them anonymously in a private therapy session is different), not lashing out at them, etc.  I know that I have done things that need to be forgiven, and I am appreciative of those who still treat me with kindness.  Even if the wounds are still inside of them, their wounds do not lead them to treat me poorly.  I am grateful when that happens.  And I, in turn, am responsible to make sure that I do not abuse that grace by repeating bad behavior.

II Chronicles 15

II Chronicles 15 is set after King Asa of Judah defeated the Cushites, with God’s help.  A prophet, Azariah the son of Oded, comes to King Asa and prophesies.  Azariah encourages King Asa to be strong, for Asa’s work will be rewarded.  Inspired by Azariah’s prophecy, and also a prophecy of Azariah’s father Oded that Azariah apparently shared with Asa, Asa rids Judah, Benjamin, and the Ephraimite cities Asa captured of idolatry.  There are Northern Israelites and people from the Israelite tribe of Simeon (which was south of Judah, but may have moved north) who see that God is with Asa and gather to him.  The Judahites and these other Israelites commit themselves to follow God, and to put to death any Israelite in Judah who does not seek the LORD.

In the course of Azariah’s prophecy to King Asa, Azariah says some rather enigmatic things.  Allow me to quote Azariah’s prophecy (in the KJV):

“The LORD is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.  Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.  But when they in their trouble did turn unto the LORD God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them.  And in those times there was no peace to him that went out, nor to him that came in, but great vexations were upon all the inhabitants of the countries.  And nation was destroyed of nation, and city of city: for God did vex them with all adversity. Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded.”

What specific time frame does Azariah have in mind here?  When did Israel lack the true God, a teaching priest, and law?  When did Israel depart from this godlessness and turn to God, who heard her?  When was that turmoil among nations and cities that Azariah mentions?  And what does all of this have to do with Azariah’s thesis: that Asa should seek God and pursue the work that shall be rewarded?

There are a variety of explanations:

1.  One view is that Azariah is referring to the time frame of the Judges.  The Nelson Study Bible and Ralph Klein in the HarperCollins Study Bible go with this interpretation.  The time frame of the Judges was one of turmoil.  Other nations invaded and bothered Israel, and people bypassed the highways, presumably because they had criminals and robbers on them (Judges 5:6-7).  A generation arose that did not know God or remember God’s deeds for Israel (Judges 2:10), and each Israelite did what was right in his own eyes.  Yet, whenever the Israelites called upon God for help, God sent them judges to rescue them.  Azariah may be referring to this to encourage Asa and Judah to call on the LORD, regardless of how far they may have spiritually sunk, for God will answer them as God answered the Israelites in the time of the Judges.  Asa is to continue his policy of religious reform, and God will honor his work.

2.  Another view is that Azariah is talking about Jeroboam, the king of Northern Israel, who (in the eyes of the Chronicler) had forsaken God, the Torah, and the legitimate priesthood in Jerusalem.  David Rothstein in The Jewish Study Bible says that the Aramaic Targum has this sort of view.  The idea may be that King Asa of Judah should seek the LORD, even though his neighbors to the north do not.  A question I would ask of this interpretation would be how it handles II Chronicles 15:4, which depicts the afflicted people calling to the LORD and being answered by him.  The Northern Israelites did not do this too often.  There were times when God answered their prayers—-I think of the time that God sent them rain after the Israelites at last acknowledged that the LORD is God, in response to Elijah’s competition with the prophets of Baal—-but I have a hard time believing that Azariah had incidents like this in mind.  Then again, who knows?  Azariah may be saying that God is willing to answer the sinful North whenever it calls to God for mercy, and so that should encourage Asa to seek God.

3.  A third view is that Azariah is referring to the kings of Judah prior to King Asa, kings who disobeyed God and experienced affliction from other nations (i.e., Shishak).  In this scenario, Azariah is encouraging Asa to depart from the godless policy of his predecessors.  But does this fit?  Azariah is talking about a time when Israel lacked God, a teaching priest, and Torah, but Judah had God, the Jerusalem priesthood, and the Torah under Asa’s predecessors.  Arguably, going back to the view that Azariah is talking about the time frame of the Judges, Israel had these things even way back then: the priest Phinehas makes an appearance in the Book of Judges.  Interpreters have responded to this sort of argument by saying that, sure, God, Torah, and priests may have existed in Israel at these times, but people were not listening to them, and the authorities failed to teach and to enforce the law, so it was like these things did not exist for Israel.  If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?  Similarly, what if God is speaking and no one listens or responds?  Overall, if Azariah is speaking about Asa’s predecessors, the point may be that there has been lawlessness and international chaos during the reigns before Asa, but God has been eager to help Israel when she has called upon him.  In II Chronicles, that has been the case: Shishak invaded Judah when Rehoboam was king, but God helped Judah when she showed humility (II Chronicles 12).  Even in Asa’s reign, God helped Judah when Asa called to him while contending with foreign aggressors (II Chronicles 14).

4.  A fourth view is that Azariah is talking about the future.  Rothstein attributes this view to the LXX, but, as far as I can see, the LXX only uses the future in this prophecy in v 4 and v 6.  V 4 says that he will turn to God, and God will answer.  The “he” is probably Israel, which is discussed in the previous verse.  Azariah may be predicting that Israel will turn to God after a period of lawlessness, and that may be a prediction of Asa’s religious reforms.  V 6 of the LXX says that nations will fight nations and cities will fight cities.  That is consistent with the Hebrew, which uses a vav-perfect (which often is future-tense).  The idea here may be that hard times are coming for the world, but Asa and Judah can find security by turning to God.

Which explanation do I buy?  I tend to lean towards the view that Azariah is talking about the time of the Judges.  That was when there was chaos, and it was also when Israel repented and was answered by God.  Maybe the third explanation can work, too.  Either way, Azariah’s point is that there was a time when Israel repented of her godlessness and called on God, and God answered her, and so Asa can be assured that God will do the same if Asa leads Judah to repent before God.

Book Write-Up: Like a Flower in Bloom, by Siri Mitchell

Siri Mitchell.  Like a Flower in Bloom.  Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2015.  See here for Bethany House’s page about the book.

Charlotte Withersby lives with her father and her cranky housekeeper in nineteenth century England.  Her father is a botanist, and Charlotte collects samples for him, writes and illustrates his books for him, and takes care of his bills and his correspondence.  She loves her work, even though, sadly, she does not get any credit for it.  Her uncle, an admiral who left botany to sail in the Opium Wars, thinks it is time for Charlotte to get married.  Edward Trimble arrives to perform Charlotte’s daily tasks, while Charlotte enters the social scene in search of a husband.  Charlotte resents Mr. Trimble and does not want to get married, so she hatches a plot with her new friend, the social butterfly Miss Templeton, to appear like she’s looking for a husband, in hopes that her father will change his mind and let her come back to her work.  Charlotte manages to get two admirers, notwithstanding her bluntness, her tendency to take things literally, and other social faux pas she commits.  Meanwhile, Mr. Trimble offers her social tips, and we learn in the course of the book where he learned the art of playing the social scene.

Like a Flower in Bloom is narrated in the first person, from Charlotte Withersby’s perspective.  Her manner of narrating is very English, and thus formal and sophisticated.  But she can also be hilarious, at times, especially as she tries to make sense of etiquette and the rules of socializing.  For example, when Mr. Trimble challenges her that her walk is all wrong because she looks like she is in a hurry to get from one place to another, she replies that walking is for that very purpose—-to get from one place to another!  Those who like the TV show Bones will love this book!  Charlotte reminded me a lot of Temperance Brennan!

The dialogue in the book had a sort of Aaron Sorkin feel to it: rapid, witty.  It reminded me somewhat of The Newsroom, especially scenes in the show where people interact with the socially-awkward, and also lovely, Sloan Sabbith.

In a note at the end of the book, the author, Siri Mitchell, comments on botany in the seventeenth-nineteenth centuries, the Opium Wars, and introversion.  Her comments on introversion were especially endearing to me, especially her statement that “Perhaps my novels always speak to questions of worth because so often I doubt my own” (page 361).  Her comments on the history of botany, however, puzzled me a bit, because I had a difficult time making sense of them in terms of the plot of the book.  According to Mitchell, there was a division between people who studied botany to understand God through creation, and people who treated botany as more of a secular discipline.  Mitchell seemed to express a preference for the former theological approach.  The thing is, Charlotte appeared to me to lean more towards the latter approach, focusing on the classification of plants.  Occasionally, Charlotte contemplated the theological significance of botany—-as when she reflected that everything, however strange (strange plants, and herself), has a place in God’s world—-but it seemed to me that she had those kinds of reflections when she was inspired by discussions with others, particularly the rector; left to her own devices, her approach was rather secular.  Later in the book, Charlotte wonders what the meaning of her work is and how it even teaches people about God, and that puzzled me somewhat, since her work prior to that point did not seem to be about theology.  That could be Mitchell’s point: that it should have been.  Even though that passage confused me, it still was important in the story, for it is not surprising that Charlotte’s attitude towards her work would be different when she returns to it after time away.

I should also note that Charlotte becomes more of a feminist, expressing the sorts of sentiments that would appear in Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique.  I consider it a good thing for an evangelical book to express those sentiments.

Notwithstanding my confusion in areas, I am giving this book five stars.  As a person with Asperger’s Syndrome, I appreciated reading Charlotte’s journey to navigate her way through social mazes.  And one of the book’s key themes resonated with me: the theme of accepting people as they are, even if they walk to the beat of a different drummer.

The publisher sent me a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.

Reflections on the Texas Trails Series

I have been reviewing books for the Texas Trails series for almost a year.  The Texas Trails series is Christian historical fiction that is about nineteenth century Texas.  It focuses on the Morgan family.  See here for my reviews of the books.

The books have three authors: Darlene Franklin, Susan Page Davis, and Vickie McDonough, all of whom have written other works of Christian fiction.  The books, in their proper order, are as follows:

1.  Lone Star Trail, by Darlene Franklin.
2.  Captive Trail, by Susan Page Davis.
3.  Long Trail Home, by Vickie McDonough.
4.  A Ranger’s Trail, by Darlene Franklin.
5.  Cowgirl Trail, by Susan Page Davis.
6.  End of the Trail, by Vickie McDonough.

In terms of the Texas Trails series, each author approaches her story in a distinct way.

1.  Darlene Franklin focuses on the family of Judson Morgan.  Lone Star Trail does so, and A Ranger’s Trail is about Judson’s son Buck.  In Darlene Franklin’s books of the series, I do not see much (if anything at all) about non-Christians becoming Christians.  Rather, what happens in her books is that a Christian grows as a Christian, learning such values as accepting people who are different or forgiveness.  Franklin’s books of the series stress divisions between people and how they can be overcome.  Her books in this series also have a lot of characters.

2.  Susan Page Davis focuses on the family of Billie Morgan.  Billie is the sister of Judson Morgan, and she was captured by the Comanche.  Captive Trail is about Billie, and Cowgirl Trail is about her son, Alex Bright.  In terms of religion and spirituality, Davis is not as overt about this, at least in comparison with Franklin and McDonough.  There are references to divine providence in Davis’ books, but there usually are not religious and spiritual epiphanies on the part of the characters.  In Davis’ books, people help others: the nuns help Billie, and Alex Bright helps women driving cattle to market.  Another characteristic of Davis’ work in this series is that the plots are slow and focus on only a few themes.  That can actually be an asset, for it creates a certain tension, and it allows readers to take their time in getting to know the characters.

3.  Vickie McDonough focuses on the family of Riley Morgan, who was the son of Calder Morgan, brother of Judson.  Long Trail Home is about Riley, and End of the Trail is about Riley’s son Brooks.  In terms of religion and spirituality, McDonough focuses on how people are imperfect and that is why Christ came to die for our sins.  Her two books also have a clear villain, some well-to-do person who wants to take something that a protagonist loves.  (The villain is a different person in both books, just to be clear.)

The book of the series that I most enjoyed was Davis’ Captive Trail.  I liked the book because I was rooting for people to be able to communicate with Billie, plus I appreciated the idea of people from different backgrounds coming together to help her.  I gave it a lower Amazon rating than I gave some of the other books of the series, however, because I wished that the book provided a more balanced depiction of the Comanche.

The book of the series that I did not enjoy reading as much was Darlene Franklin’s A Ranger’s Trail.  It was too complicated for me as a reader.  And yet, there are aspects of the book that endear it to me.  I love Franklin’s dedication of her book to her son: “Together, God has taught us how to forgive the unforgiveable and has restored us to each other.”  It seems to me that this book was very personal for Darlene Franklin.  A Ranger’s Trail was also meaningful to me because it was about the damage that can come from resentment and unforgiveness.  That resonated with me at this particular season of my life.

I have enjoyed this series, and I thank Moody Press for sending me review copies of books from the series over the past year.