Book Write-Up: The Other Worldview, by Peter Jones

Peter Jones.  The Other Worldview: Exposing Christianity’s Greatest Threat.  Bellingham, WA: Kirkdale Press, 2015.  See here to buy the book.

In The Other Worldview, Peter Jones distinguishes between two worldviews.  He calls one “Twoism,” and the other “Oneism.”  Twoism, which Jones believes, distinguishes between the creator and the creation.  That is why it is called “Twoism”: there are two parties, creator and creation, and one is separate from the other.  Twoism also honors the distinctions that God made in creation (i.e., male and female).

Oneism, by contrast, conflates God with creation.  This occurs in a variety of manifestations.  According to Jones, paganism treated nature as divine.  Pantheism regards the cosmos as divine.  Gnosticism believes that there is an inner divinity within humans with which they should get in touch.

Jones contends that Oneism is prevalent today, and he believes that Oneism is dangerous.  For Jones, Oneism promotes narcissism, as people search for the God within.  Oneism has also encouraged the sexual revolution, according to Jones.  It dismisses God’s distinction between male and female through its acceptance of homosexual sex and transgenderism.  The psychologist Carl Jung, who is particularly criticized in this book as anti-Christian, did not conform to traditional Christian views on sexuality (i.e., fidelity within marriage).  Although Oneism speaks highly of social justice, Jones does not believe that its adherents have the capacity to create a just society.

Jones does not just criticize Oneism, but he also promotes Twoism, particularly Christian Twoism.  For Jones, Twoism encourages love for others rather than a narcissistic search for the divine within or a feeding of one’s fantasies.  Twoism worships a being higher than oneself, gives God thanks, and submits to God in holiness.  Twoism hopes for God’s eschatological renewal of the cosmos.

Jones asserts that there are only two perspectives: Oneism and Twoism.  One either worships the Creator, or one worships the creation (Romans 1:25), as far as Jones is concerned.  Jones also seems to think that Christianity is the only truly (or fully) Twoist religion, on account of its belief in the Trinity.  For Jones, God loves Godself within the context of the Trinity and did not create humans out of any neediness on God’s part, but rather out of love.  This God is truly independent of creation.

Jones does document his claims, or he at least points readers to resources.  He refers to Jung’s writings, Hebrew Bible scholarship about paganism, and “Oneist” writings.

My main problem with the book is that it paints a picture of a monolithic threat, when reality is more complex than that.  That is the impression that the book left on me as a reader.  Jones, who went to Harvard and Princeton, is probably aware of complexities and nuances, but such an awareness was not salient in his book.  In effect, Jones lumped a bunch of people and ideas together, interpreted their beliefs in a less-than-sympathetic or less-than-empathetic manner, and warned Christians about this dangerous boogeyman whom he was presenting.

But not all of the people Jones was criticizing are Oneists.  The extreme sentiments of a few radicals on sexuality, even if they are scholars, does not speak for all supporters of homosexual rights.  Not all (or probably even most) Oneists support narcissism, pornography, or dehumanization of other people.  People can take Oneist thoughts in a positive direction (i.e., love the other, for the divine is in her, too), just as one can take Twoist thoughts in negative directions (i.e., intolerance, self-flagellation for being a sinner, etc.).  How would Jones feel if a left-wing secularist were to make generalizations about conservative Christians, painting them as a dangerous movement or a sinister conspiracy?  People have done that, using the sorts of methods that Jones uses in his portrayal of Oneism.  There may be something valid in both pictures, but neither is entirely accurate, or fair.

Jones’ book would have been better, had there been more acknowledgment of nuance.  Jones could have acknowledged nuance, while still mounting an effective critique of Oneism.

Moreover, from a scholarly perspective, I would have liked to have seen more nuance in Jones’ portrayal of ancient Near Eastern paganism.  Jones does well to point to scholarly resources on this, including older Hebrew Bible scholarship that held that the pagans divinized nature.  Still, ancient Near Eastern paganism did have creation myths, which leans towards a Twoist model.  Jones should have wrestled more with the extent to which ancient Near Eastern paganism was Oneist, and the extent to which it was Twoist.  I recognize that Jones did not intend this book to be a scholarly work of Hebrew Bible scholarship, but rather a popular book.  At the same time, some recognition of nuance would have made the book better.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

Is Star Wars Demonic, and Should Christians See It?

I am reading Peter Jones’ The Other Worldview: Exposing Christianity’s Greatest Threat.  I received a complimentary review copy.  Not long ago, I linked to Jones’ critical article about Star Wars.

A key villain in Jones’ book, and article, is the psychologist Carl Jung.  In Jones’ portrayal, Jung was anti-Christian.  Jung also received guidance from a spirit guide, named Philemon.  Jung would have a profound impact on Joseph Campbell, who would influence George Lucas, the maker of Star Wars.

That gets me asking: Should I go see Star Wars, when some of its mythology could be based on demonic influence?

I do plan on seeing it.  I would regret not seeing it on the big screen, on account of some religious hang-up.  Still, the question does occur to me.

And it does not just occur to me in reference to Star Wars.  Should I stop watching Little House on the Prairie, Highway to Heaven, and Father Murphy, all of which were made by Michael Landon?  Consider this quote from Landon, which is on the Internet Movie Database:

“I felt my father’s presence with me, enlightening my memories, helping me to commit to paper the feelings I had. I really heard my father speaking to me from the other dimension, filling my mind with just the right words. The story came so fast and was so right. In three days, the script was complete.”

Did Michael Landon get some of his ideas from the beyond?  I suppose that a strict fundamentalist Christian could regard his shows as religiously deceptive, promoting a concept of salvation by works, apart from faith in Jesus Christ.

I am hesitant to link to this article, since it is on David Icke’s site, and I do not believe that lizard-people control the government.  Still, if what it says is true, then spiritualism has been pervasive within Hollywood.

How should a Christian respond to Hollywood or television?  Should a Christian not watch anything except for Christian movies?  Maybe a Christian should not watch anything at all and should simply read the Bible!  One can avoid demonic or Satanic deception that way.

Do the Scriptures offer guidance about this?  I think that one can see both sides in Scripture.  On the one hand, Deuteronomy 12:30 prohibits the Israelites from inquiring how the Canaanites worshiped their gods and imitating their worship.  There are orthodox Jews who conclude from this that they are not allowed to study other religions.  On the other hand, in many college classes about the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East, one hears that the ancient Israelites who wrote the Bible absorbed motifs from their ancient Near Eastern context.  How the God of the Bible is portrayed overlaps with how other ancient Near Easterners portrayed their gods.

There is the prohibition on consulting mediums (Leviticus 19:31).  Does that mean that one cannot see a movie or watch a show that may have been inspired by a spirit?  Or is that merely prohibiting consulting a medium for questions about one’s personal life, or decisions that one may make?

The apostle Paul seemed to regard the Greco-Roman religions of his day as demonic.  He states in I Corinthians 10:20 that the Gentiles are sacrificing to demons, not to God.  The church father Justin Martyr had a similar attitude towards pagan worship.  At the same time, Paul in Acts 17 appealed to pagan sources in trying to convince his audience to believe in Jesus Christ.  He found, and exploited, overlap between his own beliefs about God and a pagan belief system.  So did Justin Martyr, for that matter.

It can be a difficult issue, for Christians.  Some may feel that they are strong enough to withstand deception, to sift the wheat from the chaff.  I see myself as one who can appreciate a movie, a book, or a TV show, without adopting the entire belief system that is in that medium of communication.  At the same time, can anyone be too confident?  I know that my attitudes about sexuality have been shaped by what I have seen on television and in movies, and my attitudes are not entirely godly, from a Christian standpoint.

Star Wars was an avenue through which I learned about God.  It had lessons: about relying on the spiritual, calming down, not giving in to hate.  People in churches and in recovery groups draw from and pass on wisdom that they have learned from Star Wars: “You must UNLEARN what you have learned.”  “Do, or do not.  There is no try.”  “That is why you fail.”  Indeed, there are overlaps between Star Wars and Christianity.  “May the Force be with you” reminds me of Christians who desire that God be with them.  Still, notwithstanding the similarity, the Force in Star Wars is not like the Christian God.  It is an energy that flows from nature and binds the universe.

Most stories will be imperfect, in terms of their spiritual accuracy and worldview.  My approach is to accept what is edifying.  Throughout the New Testament, there seems to be an acknowledgment that Christians will hear a lot of things, from different perspectives.  They are to prove all things and hold fast to what is good, according to I Thessalonians 5:21.  Yet, the very next verse tells them to abstain from all appearance of evil.  Does that have to do with not watching Star Wars (or, in those days, not listening to false teaching or pagan stories), or is it an ethical exhortation: you, do not do evil things, or things that remotely appear evil?

At the same time, there are exhortations about not listening to false teachers, or even welcoming them into one’s home (I John 2:10).  There are teachings that can form a solid foundation for a spiritual life, and there are teachings that can lead in negative directions.  One should be discerning.  Christians may also see a need to determine for themselves if a person is imposing a false belief system on them, and if they find that this is compromising their own spiritual walk.  I am not talking about putting blinders on and refusing to hear other perspectives.  What I am saying is that there are times when, in a relationship, one has to determine what one believes and where one wants to go, and if that relationship is conducive to those goals or detrimental.

My post does make some religious assumptions.  I am assuming that Christianity is true, whereas spiritualists are getting their messages from demons.  Could I be wrong?  The Gnostics, after all, thought that their view was true, whereas the biblical God was a deceptive sub-deity.  Could Jung and Michael Landon have been receiving messages from the beyond that were not demonic?  I suppose that we can judge that by the fruits of what they produced.  But Star Wars and Michael Landon’s show teach good values.  They can also encourage interest in the spiritual, and perhaps Christianity.  Yet, Christians can come back and say that Satan can appear as an angel of light (II Corinthians 11:14).

There is also the missionary or evangelistic angle.  Some Christians say that Christians should see Star Wars because it is part of their culture, and they should be able to engage their culture if they are to bring people to Christ.  Maybe.  I guess I can go with that idea to make myself feel better about seeing Star Wars!  But I have issues with such a negative approach: Can I ever approach a source sympathetically, to learn from it, as opposed to judging it according to some fundamentalist Christian grid?

Feel free to share your thoughts.  It may take me a while (as in, a day) to publish them.  But I am interested in reading them.

Why Did God Reject Cain’s Offering in “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan”?

I finished “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” not long ago.  This is a Christian work that dates anywhere from the fifth century C.E. to the ninth century C.E.  It was written originally in Arabic and was translated into Ethiopic.

In this post, I will highlight how this work addresses a question: Why did God in Genesis 4 accepts Abel and Abel’s sacrifice but not Cain and Cain’s offering?

The answer to this question that I heard when I saw the story of Cain and Abel on Superbook as a kid was that Cain had a bad attitude.  Cain did not give God the best, whereas Abel did.

In high school, I read an alternative explanation.  This was in a book by E.W. Bullinger entitled The Great Cloud of Witnesses, which was about the exemplars of faith in Hebrews 11.  According to Bullinger, what differentiated Abel’s offering from Cain’s offering was not attitude, so much, but rather the nature of the sacrifice.  Abel offered an animal sacrifice, whereas Cain offered fruit from the ground.  Animal sacrifices atoned for sin because they were blood sacrifices, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin (Hebrews 9:22).  Fruit sacrifices, by contrast, not only did not atone for sin, but they were also from ground that God had cursed (Genesis 3:17).  For Bullinger, the lesson of the Cain and Abel story was that we should trust the blood of Christ for salvation, rather than our own cursed works.

I have heard Bullinger’s interpretation in other settings.  When I was in college, I visited a conservative Baptist church.  The pastor there was criticizing the view that God rejected Cain’s offering because Cain had a bad attitude, treating it practically as a deception from Satan!  The pastor believed that God rejected Cain’s offering because it was not a blood sacrifice, the only kind that would atone for sin.  The pastor took the opportunity to invite us to trust in the blood of Christ for salvation.  Otherwise, God will reject us and our flawed attempts to win God’s favor.

I lean in the direction of saying that Cain’s sacrifice was rejected on account of Cain’s bad attitude.  Genesis 4:4-5 says that Cain brought from the fruits of his ground, and that Abel brought the firstlings of his flock and the fat.  The implication seems to be that Abel brought his best for God, whereas Cain did not.
Where does “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” land on this question?  Its telling of the story is in Book I, chapters 76-78.

“The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” leans in the direction of saying that God rejected Cain and Cain’s sacrifice on account of Cain’s bad attitude.  Cain did not value or enjoy the worship of God.  Abel regularly went with his parents to worship God, but Cain often did not go.  When Cain did offer a sheep to God, it was the smallest sheep that he could find.  Cain was eyeing the sheep when he was sacrificing it, as if he did not want to give it up.  Cain had a murderous attitude towards his brother Abel.  Cain feared that his parents loved Abel more than him and that they would give his beautiful sister to Abel in marriage, and Satan was encouraging those thoughts.  When Abel and Cain both brought offerings, Cain threw Abel away from the altar, offered his own sacrifice, and cried out to God to accept it.  But God did not send God’s divine fire from heaven to accept Cain’s offering.  God considered Cain proud and (for some reason) fraudulent.

Abel, by contrast, enjoyed the worship of God and was guileless and meek.

There are two things to note, which are relevant to Bullinger’s interpretation.

First of all, “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” does not make a big deal about Abel offering an animal and Cain offering fruit.  In fact, that is not even necessarily the case.  Cain offers an animal on a couple of occasions.  And Adam instructs Abel to offer corn.

Why “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” says this, when Genesis 4 is clear that Cain offered fruit from the ground and Abel offered from his flock, is unclear to me.  There does seem to be a loose understanding of “fruit” in “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan,” Book I, chapter 77.  There,  Adam instructs Cain to take from the fruit of his sowings and offer it to God, and Cain in that chapter offers an animal.  That does not solve everything, however.  Genesis 4:2 says that Abel was a keeper of sheep, whereas Cain was a tiller of the ground, so it makes sense that Abel would offer a sheep while Cain would offer fruit.  As far as I can remember, “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” does not differentiate between the occupations of Cain and Abel.  Was “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” relying on oral traditions rather than the biblical text itself?

(UPDATE: This article states: “It is remarkable that in this legend the offerings of Cain and Abel have been reversed.  Contrary to what the Scriptures say, in this tale it is Cain who offers animal sacrifices and Abel who offers grains and vegetables.  It is possible that this alteration reflects a bowdlerisation of the biblical narrative by an Encratic Christian heretic who rejected the killing and eating of animals, perhaps due to a ‘Manichaean’ rejection of created matter.”  I am unfamiliar with this author and I do not know his credentials, though I do know Doug Ward, whose publication the article was in.  I am not equipped presently to evaluate his statement, but I may revisit it in the future.)

Second, there does seem to be an assumption in “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” that Cain and Abel are offering sacrifices to atone for sin.  It was not the case that Abel’s sacrifice had an atoning function, whereas Cain’s did not.  In chapter 77, Adam tells both Cain and Abel to offer fruit to atone for their sins and wickedness.  Adam notices that Cain hates his brother, and Adam hopes that their offering of sacrifices to God will soften their hearts.  Cain’s offering in this retelling probably did not successfully atone for Cain’s sin because God rejected it on account of Cain’s attitude.

While God does detest Cain in “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan,” God still shows Cain mercy after Cain kills Abel.  That is a theme that runs throughout “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan”: God’s mercy and patience with people, notwithstanding the wrong things that they do.

Movie Write-Up: Ragamuffin (2014)

I watched the 2014 movie, Ragamuffin, a couple of nights ago.  Ragamuffin tells the story of award-winning Christian Contemporary musician Rich Mullins.  It goes from his childhood, through his success and the time that he spent on a Native American reservation, up to his tragic death in an automobile accident in 1997.

I was familiar with Rich Mullins’ music before I was familiar with Rich Mullins himself.  If you attend an evangelical event of praise and worship, you will probably sing at least one Rich Mullins song, and maybe more.  The songs that I particularly remember are “Step by Step” and “Awesome God.”

Rich did a concert at my undergraduate institution in the 1990s, and I went to that.  We sang “Awesome God.”  He did his simulated “rain” trick, in which people in the audience simulated the sound of rain by snapping their fingers and slapping their thighs.  What was ironic was that it actually did rain after that!  Someone told me that Rich Mullins’ response to that was, “Yeah, that was awesome, wasn’t it?”  He sounded to me like a nice guy, not the sort of celebrity who puts on airs.

Rich Mullins did not just sing at the concert, but he also shared his reflections about faith and life while he was playing the piano.  He was honest and funny.  I remember him sharing about how he can develop his own worldview of how life is, and then the Bible comes along and unravels it!  He referred to that verse in Psalm 137 in which the Psalmist blesses those who dash babies’ heads on rocks.  (The Psalmist is wishing that this might occur to Babylonian babies, since the Babylonians had done the same thing to the Israelites.)  “Imagine sharing that at a pro-life meeting!”, Rich said.

Later, listening to the radio, I gained more insight into how Rich Mullins did not just talk the talk, but walked the walk.  Rich donated most of his money to charity.  He also lived on a poor Native American reservation, teaching music there and helping people out.  It was sad that he died in that automobile accident in 1997, at the young age of 42.

The movie, Ragamuffin, looks into the side of Rich Mullins that I did not know about.  Yes, he was friendly, open, and approachable.  But he was also very lonely, to the point of being needy.  He had friends, but he felt hurt when a friend went somewhere without telling him.  He was what people in Alcoholics Anonymous would call “restless, irritable, and discontent.”  And, speaking of that, there were seasons in which he drank a lot, even when he was a Christian celebrity.  He had unresolved issues with his father, since the two of them did not get along.  He and his college girlfriend also broke up, but he still loved her and did not marry after that.

Rich was not easy to work with because he wanted to do things his way, rather than conforming to the Christian music business’s expectations.  People thought his songs were too brooding and that his running commentary at his concerts was too controversial.  (The songs that I knew never struck me as particularly deep and brooding, but some of his songs apparently were.)  His business superiors tried to appeal to the “toys” that Rich got to buy to get him to conform, but it got to the point where those things did not matter to Rich anymore.  As one of his managers said, “Someone who doesn’t want anything is a dangerous person.”  But Rich was searching for something: authenticity, healing, and fulfillment.

He did not spend all of his time feeling sorry for himself and having an existential crisis, however.  He sought out mentors.  One mentor was the father of his college roommate, a likable, humble fellow, and a strong Christian.  Another was Brennan Manning, a preacher, author, and  recovering alcoholic.  Manning popularized the term “Ragamuffin” (someone who realizes he needs God’s mercy) and taught Rich that God loved him as he was, not as he should be.  Rich also served people at the Native American reservation, and his own brokenness helped him to minister to others at his concerts.  For example, he played and sang the song, “Hold me Jesus, I’m shaking like a leaf.”

Rich obviously did not have everything together.  Perhaps that is what made him accepting, honest, and open with others.

His brother is in the movie, playing the DJ who interviews Rich Mullins.  I thought that the DJ looked like Rich but realized that he couldn’t be him because Rich died about a decade ago.  But it was Rich’s brother Dave.

I found this movie worth watching.  It is a bit long: two hours and seventeen minutes.  But it was an interesting look at the man.  I am still sad that he died.

Wikipedia’s article about Rich Mullins may give you more insight about Rich and his significance.  The article links to some articles that suggest that Rich, soon before his death, was thinking of converting to Catholicism.  (That stands out to me because I remember a Catholic friend telling me that he liked Catholic liturgy rather than “Awesome God.”)  See also wikipedia’s article about Brennan Manning.

Seeing God, Feeling God, and Obedience

My pastor at church this morning preached about the magi of Matthew 2.  According to my pastor, the star that proclaimed Jesus’ birth was there for everyone to see.  The reason that the magi saw it was that they were looking for it.  The pastor talked about how we should be on the lookout for God’s presence in the world.

That is a struggle for me.  I fear being dogmatic about where God is in the world, like the Christians who casually claim that “God told” them such-and-such.  At the same time, do I want to go to the other extreme and to say that I cannot know anything at all about what God is doing in the world?  Can God use events to instruct me and to help my Christian walk?  I think so.  To respond to God, one needs to know something about God.  God is not totally hidden, right?

I watched an excellent movie about Christian musician Rich Mullins last night.  I will write about it sometime this coming week.  It was a 2014 movie called Ragamuffin.  In that movie, the character of Rich Mullins was talking about not feeling God.  He then said that Christianity is not about feelings, but obedience.

The concept of Christian obedience has long been scary to me.  Maybe that is because I associate it with perfectionism, legalism, or God mandating that I be something that I am not, as opposed to respecting where I am.  But I should not repudiate the concept of obeying God.  That is something concrete, something to hold on to when the feelings are not there, something that honors and aims to implement God’s character.  It is respecting the existence of truths, regardless of what one feels.

Obedience does not necessarily have to entail immediate perfectionism, either.  One can seek out opportunities and paths of obedience.  One does not need to be perfect to do that.

One would like for some feeling of God to be there, though.  Mother Theresa did good in the world, and the world is better on account of her example and her ministry.  But couldn’t God have encouraged her more than God did?  Maybe God wanted her to be an example of someone who holds on to truth, even if the feelings are not there.

Book Write-Up: Against the Tide, by Elizabeth Camden

Elizabeth Camden.  Against the Tide.  Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2012.  See here to buy the book.

I said after reading Until the Dawn that I wanted to read more Elizabeth Camden novels.  I just read Elizabeth Camden’s Against the Tide, and my conclusion is that this was a good decision that I made.
Against the Tide is set in the late 1800s.  In 1876, Lydia Pallas’ father and mother brought her to America from Greece.  The father was Greek, and the mother was Turkish, so they were ostracized in Greece.  Soon after arriving in America, Lydia’s parents were deported back to Greece.  Lydia stayed behind in America and was sent to an orphanage.  While there, the supervisors gave the kids doses of Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup to calm them down.  Lydia has been taking that syrup for years, particularly for her headaches.

(UPDATE: I may have misunderstood what happened to Lydia's parents.  It appears that they were lost at sea.  That part of the book was difficult for me to understand, since it was from the perspective of Lydia, who did not know English and was piecing things together.)

Lydia learned English and grew up to work as a translator for the Office of Naval Intelligence.  She works for the dignified Admiral Eric Fontaine.  A man comes regularly to see Admiral Fontaine.  He is attractive and confident, and he flirts with Lydia and rearranges the stuff on her desk when she is not around (which annoys the orderly Lydia!).  His name is Alexander Banebridge, but he goes by “Bane.”

Bane hires Lydia for some independent translation projects.  She does not know what the point of these projects is, and she wonders if Bane is giving her busy work simply to get closer to her.  She goes along with the projects, however, because she needs the money so she can buy her apartment.  Plus, she is falling in love with Bane.  She believes that she can be herself around him.

It turns out that Bane has his own personal crusade against opium.  Bane recruits politicians who could be sympathetic to his cause.  He even recommends that the widowed Admiral Fontaine marry Lydia and run for office, since Lydia could get Fontaine the immigrant vote!  Bane also searches for suppliers of opium.  He has recruited Lydia to help him in this task.

The reason that Bane is crusading against opium is that, years earlier, he worked for a Professor who was the leader of an underground opium ring.  Due to the influence of some Christian women, Bane became a Christian and left the Professor’s service.  Bane feels guilty for his part in the opium ring, particularly when he considers the damage that opium has done to people, including children.  Bane loves Lydia, but he feels that he cannot get involved with a woman because the Professor will kidnap anyone who matters to Bane, just to get Bane working for him again.

The first third of the book was rather slow, and (paradoxically) I thought that Lydia was falling in love with Bane too quickly.  The book picked up, however, when Lydia lost her job after helping Bane on one of his shady (yet legal) projects.  Lydia struggled thereafter to find employment.  One of her friends and coworkers suggested that she work at the local bakery, and she did that, for a while.  But she encounters Bane again, and Bane recruits her for another project.  The Professor has kidnapped Admiral Fontaine’s son Jack.  Lydia is to work for the Professor to translate an ancient Greek text, as part of a plan to free Jack.

Lydia’s time with the Professor had lots of suspense.  Because the professor was in a hurry for Lydia to translate that Greek text, Lydia did not have time to return to her apartment and get the transliteration manual that would enable her to translate it.  On account of that, Lydia had to stall and come up with excuses, and the Professor was getting impatient!  Would Lydia blow her cover?  I was worried for Lydia!

Lydia was also dealing with withdrawal.  You see, that Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup that she has taken for years contains opium.  Lydia had to learn to find her security amidst stressful times from spirituality, not by falling back on Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup.

In a sense, Lydia was already a spiritual seeker.  She talked to the moon at night because that made her feel closer to her father.  She was hoping that somebody out there was listening.  That would serve as a foundation for her spiritual development.

The book was an enjoyable read.  I am not surprised that it won a Christy Award.  The romance was a little rushed, however, plus I was not entirely clear about the legal status of opium back then.  Some of the characters suggested that opium was legal, and yet it had to be smuggled.

Elizabeth Camden has written another book about Bane.  This book is entitled The Lady of Bolton Hill.  Bane in this book is still working for the Professor, but he leaves the Professor’s service.  I actually want to read it!

Scattered Ramblings on New Year's Day

Many people see New Year’s Day as a time of hope and new beginnings.  We may have had a bad year, and we hope for a better one.  Or we may simply hope for a better year, even if the previous year was not particularly horrible.

But we do this every year, year after year after year.  That can easily lead some to ask questions: “Are our hopes for the new year truly justified?  How do we know that this coming year will not be like the previous year?”

I suppose that having a good year, or a year of turnaround or breakthrough, is not unheard of.  I can envision people saying, for instance: “Last year, I did not have a job; now I do.”  “Last year, I was not a published author; now I am.”  That new job or new book may not bring a person paradise.  It may present challenges of its own.  And the challenges of day-to-day life will remain.  Still, it is a step up.

I think that it is good to hope.  We cannot make demands of God, but we can share with God our dreams.  I think of a scene in Lynn Austin’s  A Candle in the Darkness.  The novel is set during the American Civil War.  The protagonist, Caroline, is having Christmas dinner with some slaves.  Each person takes a turn sharing his or her dream, so that they can know what to pray for each other about.  Caroline wants to be a teacher.  Eli wants to be a pastor.  Another slave wants to work in shipping with his master, see the world, and get married.  Eli then prays that their dreams might be God’s will.  That is my hope, for myself and others: “May your dream be God’s will.”

Maybe this year will be just another year.  Whatever it brings, it can be a time of growth, even for those whose dreams are not fulfilled.  Life presents us with opportunities to do things better, even if what goes on in our lives is not better.  I am not necessarily talking about making New Year’s resolutions that one will likely break.  I myself do not make New Year’s resolutions.  Still, I respect that many people do so as part of their vision for a new beginning.  New Year’s Day is a good day for that.

The concept of newness appears often in the Bible: receiving a new start after being forgiven, becoming a new person after being born again, a new creation, receiving a new way of looking at the world, God making a new heavens and a new earth.  Many of us desire what is new.  Maybe we are bored with the old, or look to the new to spice up our lives, or desire a change of scene.  One could say that the new can become old, and what then?  Will we become bored with the new?  That often happens.  In the case of the Christian life, however, there is always room for improvement.  There are always areas in which the new can replace the old.  And I believe, with John Wesley, that, even when we arrive at perfection, we will continually grow and learn new ways to love God and neighbor, new dimensions and insights into what that means and entails.

Why hope, when we do not really know if there is a basis for hope?  I like what Romans 4:18 says: Abraham hoped against hope that his barren wife Sarah would have a son.  Abraham is not entirely in the same position that many of us are.  Abraham had a direct and an explicit promise from God.  Many of us do not quite have that.  Still, we have a God who loves us.  Should that not give us hope?

Happy New Year!