Sunspots 809

 Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

The Arts: Speculative Faith considers the question of whether a story that doesn't mention God, or the Bible, can glorify Him. Answer: yes.

I know nothing about the music, or the performers, but Gizmodo reports on a production, using 200 drones, that made a giant face in the sky, that lip-synced with some music. Amazing.

Christianity: (And politics, I guess) Christianity Today on the recent Supreme Court ruling on whether state or local governments can regulate attendance at churches. More than one aspect of this is discussed.

Education: Grammarphobia discusses uses of and, as in "try and stop me," rather than "to," as in "try to stop me."

Environment: The Trump administration has rejected a project in Alaska that would have been environmentally dangerous. Good for them.

Politics: (and History) NPR on the length of time between the Presidential election and the inauguration.

Politics (and health) The Atlantic has documented all of President Trump's wrong statements about COVID. There were a lot of them.

Science: In case you didn't know it, the earth occasionally has an asteroid orbiting it, a "minimoon."

Science Alert reports on the discovery of a large swarm of eels in the deep Pacific ocean.

The graphic used in these posts is from NASA, hence, it is free to use like this.

Thanks for looking!

The Fault in Our Stars

This post is on the book, The Fault in Our Stars, by John Green. I have not seen the movie, based on that book, which is currently playing in theaters.

For the plot of the book, and more, use the first link, above, which is to the Wikipedia article on the book.

I don't wish to give away the plot, so I won't have much to say about the book.

First, it was well written. I'm not surprised that it has been a best-seller. It is aimed at the teen market. For one thing, the book is entirely as experienced by the protagonist, a 16-year-old, Hazel Grace. Some other characters, including the second most important character, are also teenagers. However, I liked it, and see no reason why adults would not appreciate the book, and, apparently, many of them have. There are references to Shakespeare and other important authors, and the dialog, which is splendid -- although it would have taken extraordinary teenagers, or, for that matter, college professors, to produce, in real life -- considers many important subjects.

Second, the book is about cancer, or having cancer. The three main teen characters all have cancer. Cancer affects living deeply -- that's one aspect, in Fault, of having it. But it doesn't make you subhuman. (The author says that he was influenced by being a chaplain in a children's hospital.) Hazel and her friend Augustus, aka Gus, come to the realization that the great paintings, such as those in art museums in The Netherlands, may be about various subjects, including, sometimes, death, but they are never about being cancer-ridden.

Third, and last, the book does not have a Christian worldview:

"All salvation is temporary," Augustus shot back. (page 59)

"Yes," he said, his voice full of confidence. "Yes, absolutely. Not like a heaven where you ride unicorns, play harps, and live in a mansion full of clouds. But yes. I believe in Something with a capital S. Always have."
"Really?" I asked. I was surprised. I'd always associated belief in heaven with, frankly, a kind of intellectual disengagement. But Gus wasn't dumb. (page 168) Gus's idea of what heaven is not like doesn't have much to do with what the Bible says about the resurrected life -- as far as I know, the Bible doesn't mention unicorns, playing harps, or living in mansions, full of clouds or not, although these are common beliefs. He is right to dismiss such ideas. But he (nor Hazel) have no grasp of personal salvation, don't pray to God, don't go to church.

Does the non-Christian worldview mean that one shouldn't read the book? No. It's a good book, but I wanted to give a heads up about that matter, which may be critical for some potential readers. Thanks for reading this.

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card

Ender's Game (1985, by Orson Scott Card, and based on a 1977 short story) was, and is, an important science fiction book. See here for its Wikipedia article -- the book won both the Nebula and Hugo awards. The book has been adapted for a movie, which is to come out tomorrow. I have not seen the movie, but I like the list of actors -- Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Abigail Breslin, Hailee Steinfeld, Viola Davis. I don't see many movies, but I have seen all of these people in one or more, and like their work. I may see this one. Card, himself, has been deeply involved in the script of the film.

Amazon recently advertised the Kindle edition of the book. I purchased it, and I'm glad that I did. I hadn't read the book in a decade or two, and it's a good read. Also, the new edition includes a fine introduction by Card, about the book, and other things. Here's an excerpt:

Why else do we read fiction, anyway? Not to be impressed by somebody’s dazzling language—or at least I hope that’s not our reason. I think that most of us, anyway, read these stories that we know are not “true” because we’re hungry for another kind of truth: The mythic truth about human nature in general, the particular truth about those life-communities that define our own identity, and the most specific truth of all: our own self-story. Fiction, because it is not about somebody who actually lived in the real world, always has the possibility of being about ourself.

What is the book about? Before I give a brief summary, some broad themes:

Relationships. I would say that extended family relationships is the most common theme I have encountered in Card's books, almost so much that his science fiction and alternate history tales are, in large part, vehicles for portrayal of that.
War, and some of the ways it warps our morals.
Teaching children to stick up for themselves by not backing them up.
What it's like to be an exceptionally intelligent child.
Bullying.
How we might interact with aliens.

There are some interesting science fiction ideas in the book. One of them is the ansible, a device for communicating instantaneously with others, not matter how far, really far away they are. Ursula K. LeGuin seems to have invented this device, in her equally important science fiction novel The Dispossessed. Another one is the alien species that Card describes sketchily in Ender's Game.

There is no explicit religion in the book, except for some Bible quotations, and a mention of the religions of Ender's parents, one of them a Mormon, one a Catholic. (Card is a Mormon.) No one prays or goes to church. There is a high moral tone, or at least recognition that some things are right.

Now, for a summary. Don't say that I didn't warn you! Spoilers included.

Before the book starts, humans have encountered an alien race, insect-like, the buggers, a few decades earlier. They defeated them, but believe that the buggers may come back, with better weapons. Mazer Rackham was the military leader who defeated them the first time.

Ender is a six-year-old boy, highly intelligent. He, and others, all over the earth, have been monitored by the army, who is looking for children who are flexible enough in their thinking, intelligent, and physically adept, to train so that they can lead the fight against the buggers, when they return. A bully attacks him, and he believes that the only way he can stop this bully is to defeat him utterly. He does, but, although Ender doesn't realize it, he kills the bully. He is given the opportunity to go to Battle School, a satellite where such children will be trained in free fall group war games, with the understanding that he won't see his family for years.

Ender's brother, Peter, is a highly intelligent sadist. His sister, Valentine, is a highly intelligent good person. He will miss her, and hates to leave her at Peter's mercy, but accepts.

Ender becomes the best leader in Battle School. Again, a bully attacks, and Ender defends himself, so thoroughly that he kills the bully, although Ender doesn't realize this. The adult leaders of Battle School want Ender to understand that he is on his own -- if something bad happens, he has no one but himself to count on. I wonder how the movie will handle the two bullying/retaliation scenes, if at all?

Ender is so good at the games, especially at leading others to be effective, that he is sent to Eros, where he takes part in more drills to fight the buggers. Eventually, Mazer Rackham becomes his teacher. (Rackham has been traveling at near-light speed, so that he can still be helpful in the next battle with the buggers.)

As you might expect, Ender, and several colleagues from Battle School, who have joined him on Eros, eventually defeat the buggers. But there are a couple of surprises in that defeat, which I won't give away.

Ender is such a hero that he can't really go back to earth. His future, traveling with Valentine, makes up a part of four additional novels. So do the lives of some of his colleagues at Battle School.

In my opinion, the most important of the succeeding novels is Speaker for the Dead, the next novel. For more on that, and other Enderverse books, see here.

Thanks for reading

Should "Christian" fiction be labeled as such?

Sorry, but I won't answer this question, but I will refer to previous discussions on the subject.

Recently, Rachelle Gardner, a literary agent, apparently one who serves authors of Faith Fiction, argues that "Christian Fiction" should be so labeled, as part of honesty in marketing. Mike Duran, who uses Gardner as his agent, begs to differ. There are many comments on both posts.

I have previously posted, several times, on what Christian fiction is, or isn't. Most of these posts are analyses of the works of authors of fantastic literature. This post is an attempt at describing Christian novels. It includes links to posts by others, including some professional authors, related to the question of definition, which is related to labeling.

Thanks for reading.

The Celtic Crusades trilogy by Stephen R. Lawhead

I recently read the Celtic Crusades trilogy by Stephen R. Lawhead. The books concern one Scottish family, and some Norwegian allies, and a search, during the time of the crusades, for three relics of the time of Christ, namely the spear that was driven into Christ's side, while He was on the cross (The Iron Lance, see here and here), the cross, itself (The Black Rood, see here and here), and the cup Christ used in The Last Supper (often called the Holy Grail, but called The Mystic Rose in Lawhead's series -- see here and here.)

Lawhead writes Faith Fiction. That is, his books are marketed towards a conservative Christian audience, and often sold through the Christian Bookseller's Association. At least one of the three books won the Christy Award. Books of Faith Fiction generally do not use the f___ word and other such words, do not usually include sexual intercourse between characters portrayed as good, who are not married to each other, and often include some explicit religious experience, such as a conversion experience. Faith Fiction may be historical, contemporary, romance, in the sense of being mainly about falling in love, murder mystery, fantastical, and more. (See here for the source of the term, and my analysis of a discussion of it by an author who writes Faith Fiction.) I prefer to read mainstream fantastic literature, having usually been somewhat disappointed by fantastic Faith Fiction, either because it is too preachy, or not well written. I read Lawhead's series, the Pendragon Cycle, five volumes about the story of King Arthur and related characters, many years ago, and have never been moved to re-read those books. I would call them fantastic literature, inasmuch as magic, and myths, were an important part of the plots. (I like magic and myths in fantastic literature, by the way.)

I don't want to give away much of the plot of the three books under discussion, since I was pleased enough by them to recommend them to readers who are interested in historical faith fiction. I will say that there was no magic, as such, in the books, except for some miracles and visions. There was no waving of wands, no spells cast by wizards. At least some parts of the books were true.

The writing was good. The plots were interesting, and at times gripping, and occasionally surprised me. There were interesting characters, including strong female characters. The main character in one of the books was female. There was no conversion, as such, but some of the characters had visions which were life-changing experiences, and were challenged to live an unselfish life, dedicated to the service of Christ, and of others, when they had been selfish, ambitious, proud, seeking personal vengeance, or a combination of these, before the experiences. There was an emphasis on true Christianity, as opposed to the emphasis on politics and profit in much of the church in the time of the crusades. (And before and after that time.)

The main character in each book fell in love, and two of them got married. This is often a characteristic of Faith Fiction.

The main problem that I had with the books was their premise, which, I guess, was realistic enough, considering the time when the stories took place, namely the importance of the sacred relics. I (and many other Protestants and others, and even some Roman Catholics) are not happy with the emphasis placed on, say, The Shroud of Turin, or the Ossuary of James. My faith does not depend on such items, and emphasizing them, genuine or not, could easily become a kind of idolatry, as I see it. The fictional people in the books, including the main characters, did revere the three objects.

Another interesting aspect of the books is that some of the Middle Eastern characters were fabulously wealthy, seeming to have enough servants, enough liquid assets, and a large enough dwelling to be able to accomplish almost anything. Some of the things that they did accomplish were for the good, by the way. Could there have been so many wealthy people in the area in the same time period? I'm not sure. There must have been many, many, poor people, as well.

Well, enough said. Thanks for reading.

Fantastic Literature - E. Stephen Burnett points out how the Bible supports it, part 2

In a previous post, I briefly described the Biblical arguments of E. Stephen Burnett, who claims that, first, Christians can produce fiction, and, second, that that fiction can be fantastic, even have elements of paganism in it. (If you wish to skip my post, and go directly to Burnett, go here and here. But I did more than just point to Burnett.)

Burnett has now gone further, claiming that, first, story-telling was a critical part of the ministry of Jesus, and, second, that at least some of the parables of Jesus were fictional. Burnett's claims are based on what the Bible says about the parables.

Thanks for reading. Read Burnett.

The Shack by William P. Young

Let's put it this way. No less than 1,811 people have written reviews of William P. Young's The Shack: A Novel (Windblown, 1997) for Amazon.com, as of November 13, 2008. It has been a New York Times best-seller, and probably still is. In a sentence, the book is about a hurting man's dialogue with God. The book has its own web site. There is, of course, a Wikipedia article about the book. So, in spite of the topic, or because of it, it's obviously pretty popular. Why? Is the popularity deserved?

The Amazon review page does something helpful, namely it shows the most critical, and the most laudatory reviews at the top, so you can read them, if you wish.

My own take is this: Even though the book is highly theological, for a novel, if you go to a novel for definitive guidance on theology, you will get what you deserve. It's a story! A fictional story. I believe that this particular story contains quite a bit of truth, useful truth, but it is fiction. For guidance in theology, go to the Bible, and the historic teachings of the church.

The theological topic that I found most often in the book is the doctrine of the Trinity. God is one being, but also three beings. I don't understand this. I doubt if William P. Young understands it completely. I doubt if humans can understand this doctrine more than superficially. I believe it, because the Bible teaches it, and because it is certainly one of the most fundamental and historic Christian doctrines. See here for my post on "What Christians Believe," which includes the text of the Nicene Creed. That Creed sets forth a belief in the Trinity, without exactly clarifying it.

Even if Young doesn't set forth a clear, explicit theology of the Trinity, I did find the book helpful. How? The Shack portrays the three persons of the Godhead as individual, yet in unselfish love with each other, and in agreement with each other. In other words, they have a relationship. They love each other, they communicate, they share. The book implies that this relationship between the persons of the Godhead is meant to show us what relationships should be like, and give us guidance about what our relationship with God should be:
"The Bible doesn't teach you to follow rules. It is a picture of Jesus. While words may tell you what God is like and even what he may want from you, you cannot do any of it on your own. Life and living is in him and in no other. My goodness, you didn't think you could live the righteousness of God on your own, did you?
. . . "It is true that relationships are a lot messier than rules, but rules will never give you answers to the deep questions of the heart and they will never love you."
. . . "Mackenzie, religion is about having the right answers, and some of the answers are right. But I am about the process that takes you to the living answer and once you get to him, he will change you from inside." (197-8)

There is more in the book, and, of course, there are things that aren't in it. My wife asked me (She is in the process of reading it) if it mentions the Bible at all. No, it doesn't.

I don't intend to give away the plot, other than to say (which is obvious pretty early on) that most of it is a dream, or a vision. But I will say that another matter which may give some readers pause is that two of the three persons of the Trinity (not Christ) are presented as females. Well, why not? God has, indeed, historically and Biblically been presented as male. That means something, for sure. But I don't see any problem with presenting God as female in fiction. I would guess (many others have also done so) that God is not exactly sexual. He transcends sexuality in ways we cannot understand. The question of God's appearance as female, in part, is discussed in the book.

There are other topics, such as a discussion of God's creation, and science as the way of learning about that, and a discussion of free will, which I found interesting. I may post a bit on those topics later. There is a lot implied about faith and trust in God.

Much of the book is conversation. If that turns you off, you'd better not read this one.

I found the book to be well-written, and well worth reading, and thank the individual who asked me my opinion of it, which led to that reading.

Thank you for reading this.

P. S. As of March 6, 2017, I have not seen the movie which is based on this book, and do not plan to. The rest of this post has not been changed from November 15, 2008.