2011 Books

2011 marks the first year in which I have maintained or exceeded a reading pace of a-book-a-month. Without further fanfare, below is my list of 2011 books (in chronological order as read):

Gilead - Marilynne Robinson - One doesn't read a Marilynne Robinson novel so much as one steeps oneself in a subtly-crafted work of art, one page at a time. These two books read at the pace of summertime twilight on a comfortable back porch, sometimes without feeling like reading at all. Instead, one could refer to an encounter with Gilead as a time of getting to know her characters--and from a seat at their own tables or by walking their garden paths. Deep, full-orbed themes throughout. A pleasure to read.

Home - Marilynne Robinson - The remarkable feature about Home is that its story involves the same few characters from the same two families, is set in the same small town, and takes place at the exact same time as Gilead. Yet somehow, the reader will be drawn sweetly through Home without the slightest hint of repetitiveness or foreknowledge. Brilliant work by an incredibly gifted author.

Reforming Marriage - Douglas Wilson - My brother Joel did well when he identified this as his "Manager of the Year" in his Third Annual Book Awards. I have never before read someone who so [appropriately] identifies the husband's immense responsibility and does so without pulling any punches, so to speak. Reforming Marriage should rouse even the laxest husband into action with a sense of the high calling that is his in marriage.

The Secret History of New Jersey - Tony Gruenewald - I probably wouldn't have cared for this brief poetry collection had I not lived and worked in New Jersey my whole life. The poetry is free-form and not particularly nuanced, but Gruenewald is to be commended for charming in verse the least charming parts of our dear State. Recommended for true New Jerseyans alone.

The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame - It would be impossible for me to overstate the magnificence of this "children's" book. Laying aside the endearing characters, and the simple beauty of the setting and the stories, it is the masterful language of this book that I found breathtaking like no other. It was a common occurrence for me to pause in a chapter in order to be able to re-read a particular sentence over and and over and over, so as to let its richness and complexity saturate my mind. I have never read a wordsmith equal to Kenneth Grahame, nor do I expect to.

Twenty Love Poems and a Song of Despair - Pablo Neruda (re-read for perhaps the 12th time?) - If you don't know my thoughts on Neruda by now, we're obviously not Facebook friends.

Love, 10 Poems - Pablo Neruda (re-read) - See above.

Future Men - Douglas Wilson - Becca and I laugh at some of the ultra-specific movie genres that Netflix features, and one of our favorites is "British Romantic Dramas with a Strong Female Lead." Future Men would fall neatly into the "Principles of Parenting Written by Somewhat Controversial Christian Authors With a Strong Male Lead" category if books were movies (let's all rejoice that they're still separate for now). When Wilson describes biblical Manhood, either here in Future Men or in Reforming Marriage (above), it is not a Manhood muzzled by undue domestication or effeminate undermining. The principles in Future Men are founded in solid biblical exposition, unlike the speculative unorthodoxy of Eldredge's Wild at Heart. I want to raise sons Doug Wilson would be proud to know.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn - Betty Smith - The foreword of the edition I read this summer contains the caution, "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is not the sort of book that can be reduced to its plot line." Quite true. In much the same way that To Kill a Mockingbird doesn't so much construct a plot as dissolve a reader into the very essence of a community and its time, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn wrapped me up in all the people, emotions, and dimensions of 1920's Brooklyn. So many aspects of these poor immigrants' lives create such a wide array of emotional responses: heartache, inspiration, admiration, joy. This immediately found a place on my list of all-time favorite novels.

Just Do Something - Kevin DeYoung - This was one of those rare books in the Theology/Christian Life genre that left me thinking, "I think I knew all that already." Perhaps it comes from growing up under preaching that not only acknowledges the Sovereignty of God, but holds fast to all the logical outworkings of that same doctrine. This book would have served me better in college, but was still worth the read as a 29-year-old husband and father of two.

Children of the Living God - Sinclair B. Ferguson - Far be it from me to speak poorly of a giant of the Church like Sinclair Ferguson, but I was rather indifferent to this, the first work of his I ever read. I love the doctrine of Adoption, and I had only ever heard great things about Rev. Ferguson. My expectations were not realized here.

Fighting the Good Fight - D.G. Hart and John Muether - I'm sure that I had never before rendered the amount of respect or appreciation due academic historians, but the re-read of this OPC history kindled such a pride and admiration for the OPC founders so as to prove the historians' worth. With disgust and shear disbelief I was reacquainted with the contents of the Auburn Affirmation of 1924. With great sorrow and remorse did I relive the mockery of a trial that put Machen and others out of Princeton and the PC (USA). Yet how great it is to be reminded that a sovereign God is ruling his Church, despite such bursts of wickedness that have tarnished her. Praise the Lord for the OPC.

Lest We Forget - Robert K. Churchill - A personal, pastoral account of the terrible events in 1920's/30's American Presbyterianism. Churchill's perspective is seemingly innocent as a child's yet buttressed with the conviction of truth and right doctrine that so characterized the founders of the OPC. A pleasure to re-read.

Winnie the Pooh - A. A. Milne (five reads in four months!) - This is the first chapter book I've read with Liam at bed time, and he has not let me read anything else since September! The illustrations are scant in number and basic in form, but the stories have kept Liam's attention every night. The language is as cute and British as the characters. I am not ashamed to state that I have posted some of my favorite quotes as Facebook stati. A must for the Gahagan and J.V. Pearce family shelves.

Other People's Love Letters - edited by Bill Shapiro - In the uber-fluff column. Although not affiliated with the Postsecret project, this is essentially the love letter version of those collections. Very few worthwhile reads amidst a sea of smut, poor spelling, and melodrama.

The Great Bridge - David McCullough - After starting in August, I only just finished in late December. I never would have imagined something in the history genre would have kept my attention through 562 pages, but I remain unalterably impressed with McCullough's storytelling abilities. I found the descriptions of old Manhattan and Brooklyn particularly fascinating, and delighted to read about streets I know fairly well through work projects. The chapters recounting the sinking of the caissons were unbelievable in the truest sense of the word. A Fantastic Book.

A Boy's Will - Robert Frost - The only regret I have about reading Robert Frost in 2011 is that I had not read him sooner. North of Boston will be an early read of 2012, no doubt.

American Boys Don't Play Baseball

Every spring, I am more and more saddened to hear reports from the boys of our church when I ask them what sport will take them out onto the newly greened grass. It was once unusual for a boy to respond that he signed up for a spring sport other than baseball, but the opposite is increasingly true--the boys I know rarely play baseball. Below are what I think are some contributing factors:

Baseball involves a lot of rules. Soccer involves few. A boy can play soccer effectively if he understands five basic instructions: "1) Put the ball into that goal; don't let the ball go into your own goal. 2) Only the goalie can use his hands. 3) Throw the ball in if the other team kicks it out of bounds. 4) Stay onside. 5) Don't foul." The explanation of the Infield Fly Rule alone is more complicated. Sure, the basic operating rules of baseball are simple enough, but an alien observer could explain very few of the rules of the game after merely watching others play baseball. Many of the rules are tied to specific or rare circumstances and some would even seem to be contradictory.

Baseball requires critical thinking and planning. Soccer decisions are mostly reactive. Generally speaking, a boy can learn to play soccer better just by giving it a try. It doesn't take expert instruction to realize that he has a better chance of coming into possession of the ball if he remains in open space; he will quickly realize that dribbling the ball too much often results in a turn-over. A boy can even improve his game IQ just by mimicking better players. Conversely, to play defensive baseball in even the most basically effective way, a boy needs to spend a significant amount of time considering what to do with the baseball if and when it is hit to him. To play even the simplest position in baseball, right field, one needs to have considered at least four different circumstances before the fall is fielded every time the ball is fielded. Every time a new batter comes to the plate, the right fielder needs to have considered: How many outs are there? What runners are on base and what is their configuration? Where should I throw the ball if I catch a fly ball? Where should I throw the ball if I field a single or a double? If the ball comes to a soccer player's feet, he usually only needs to decide if he will pass, dribble, or shoot.

Baseball is not fast-paced. Soccer is fluid and continuous. Although a baseball game is highly segmented into shorter, individual pieces--each batter, each half of an inning--to the ignorant or uninterested observer, it can seem to drag on. From afar, there is not much difference between watching players in a baseball field and watching someone do yoga--there are very few moving parts. Despite the numerous complaints about boring World Cup games, the ball is continually moving in a soccer game and players are almost never stationary.

Baseball involves failure on an individual level. Contrasted with youth soccer, in which an average field player will almost never be perceived to have "blown it," failure is built into the game of baseball. On average, Derek Jeter strikes out every six at-bats. Joel Pearce hit safely in exactly one at-bat during the 1995 Hackettstown Little League season and didn't really come close in the other 30-something. Errant throws, botched ground balls, and dropped flies are all more likely to occur than be avoided in any one inning of any Little League game. When a baseball player misses a fly ball or strikes out, the failure is acutely individual. The team doesn't strike out--little Johnny strikes out. Goalie is the only position in soccer where failure perceived to have been individual. No casual observer blames the other ten players when the ball gets by the goalie, but everyone unfairly blames Bill Buckner for blowing an entire World Series in one play.

Baseball requires a significant group in order to play even a casual game. Nearly every other sport can be enjoyed with a reduced number of players. One-on-one basketball is extreme as an exception, but 3-on-3 or 4-on-4 hockey, football, and soccer all very closely resemble the original sport when adjusted to accommodate a low turn-out of players. Even a drastic modification of the playing field and rules still requires in excess of ten baseball players to enjoy baseball competitively. The group needs a field, bases, a bat, enough gloves for the field positions, and a baseball. Soccer can be played with a ball and two trash cans in a street.


I think that reduced attention spans and a general avoidance of failure-rich activities are the most disturbing culprits in the reasons baseball is losing ground. I have not even mentioned the decline in black Major League stars, World Series games starting at 9:00 p.m. EST, or the glut of other extra-curricular activities as tertiary contributing factors.

Christianity and Liberalism - Doctrine

It wasn't until I left home for Geneva College that I ever came across someone who confidently asserted that doctrine was not an important aspect to the Christian life. Before my time in Beaver Falls, PA, I had certainly met others who by their practice showed that doctrine had no place in their life. Yet on the campus of a reformed Christian college I first came to know many who tried to intellectually defend the idea.

"My church doesn't really get caught up in confessions and creeds--we just read and teach the Bible," a friend would humbly boast. "No creed but Christ," and "Deeds, not Creeds" are popular phrases among those of like mind. Is a higher state of Christianity being achieved by claiming to reject doctrine? Can all creeds be reconciled with each other? Is the Sermon on the Mount and the life/example of Jesus all we need in this life?

The second chapter of J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism, "Doctrine," deals with some of these seemingly innocuous conjectures. The entire text can be found here. Any boldface in the excerpts below are my emphasis.

“At the outset, we are met with an objection. ‘Teachings,’ it is said, ‘are unimportant; …creeds are merely the changing expression of a unitary Christian experience, and provided only they express that experience they are all equally good. The teachings of liberalism, therefore, might be as far removed as possible from the teachings of historic Christianity, and yet the two might be at bottom the same.’...Such is the way in which expression is often given to the modern hostility to ‘doctrine.’ But is it really doctrine as such that is objected to, and not rather one particular doctrine in the interests of another? Undoubtedly, in many forms of liberalism it is the latter alternative which fits the case. There are doctrines of modern liberalism, just as tenaciously and intolerantly upheld as any doctrines that find a place in the historic creeds. Such for example are the liberal doctrines of the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man. These doctrines are, as we shall see, contrary to the doctrines of the Christian religion. But doctrines they are all the same, and as such they require intellectual defense. In seeming to object to all theology, the liberal preacher is often merely objecting to one system of theology in the interests of another. And the desired immunity from theological controversy has not yet been attained.”

“If all creeds are equally true, then since they are contradictory to one another, they are all equally false, or at least equally uncertain. We are indulging, therefore, in a mere juggling with words. To say that all creeds are equally true, and that they are based upon experience, is merely to fall back upon that agnosticism which fifty years ago was regarded as the deadliest enemy of the Church. The enemy has not really been changed into a friend merely because he has been received within the camp. Very different is the Christian conception of a creed. According to the Christian conception, a creed is not a mere expression of Christian experience, but on the contrary it is a setting forth of those facts upon which experience is based.”

“But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine.”

“The primitive Church was concerned not merely with what Jesus had said, but also, and primarily, with what Jesus had done. The world was to be redeemed through the proclamation of an event. And with the event went the meaning of the event; and the setting forth of the event with the meaning of the event was doctrine. These two elements are always combined in the Christian message. The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with the meaning of the facts is doctrine. ‘Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried’--that is history. ‘He loved me and gave Himself for me’--that is doctrine. Such was the Christianity of the primitive Church.”

“The new law of the Sermon on the Mount, in itself, can only produce despair. Strange indeed is the complacency with which modern men can say that the Golden Rule and the high ethical principles of Jesus are all that they need. In reality, if the requirements for entrance into the Kingdom of God are what Jesus declares them to be, we are all undone; we have not even attained to the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, and how shall we attain to that righteousness of the heart which Jesus demands? …The Sermon on the Mount, like all the rest of the New Testament, really leads a man straight to the foot of the Cross.”

“Let us not deceive ourselves. A Jewish teacher of the first century can never satisfy the longing of our souls.”

“As a matter of fact, however, in the modern vituperation of ‘doctrine,’ it is not merely the great theologians or the great creeds that are being attacked, but the New Testament and our Lord Himself. In rejecting doctrine, the liberal preacher is rejecting the simple words of Paul, "Who loved me and gave Himself for me," just as much as the homoousion of the Nicene Creed. For the word "doctrine" is really used not in its narrowest, but in its broadest sense. The liberal preacher is really rejecting the whole basis of Christianity, which is a religion founded not on aspirations, but on facts. Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity--liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative; liberalism appeals to man's will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God.”

“It is often said that the divided condition of Christendom is an evil, and so it is. But the evil consists in the existence of the errors which cause the divisions and not at all in the recognition of those errors when once they exist.”

Thoughts on the World Cup

With the World Cup final a few days away, I am nearly ready to return to my normal state of soccer hibernation for the next three years and eleven months. While my international soccer enthusiasm may wane back into a dormant state, I can say with certainty that I am already looking forward to 2014's tournament more than I ever expected.

2010 marks the year of the World Cup into which I most passionately invested myself. I have watched every game that was possible for me to watch (all of two), listened to games on the radio (three) and watched highlights of all 38 games played. I have checked scores on my Blackberry and solicited pre-game analysis from people born in England, Portugal, and Ecuador. While I have not gone so far as to refer to the game as "fútbol" or report scores using the word "nil," I have jumped into this World Cup with both feet. I have been an ardent soccer fan for a month.

Below are some rapid-fire thoughts on this year's tournament and/or international soccer in general:

1. Soccer on a high definition TV is amazing! Granted, so is any other sport, but the improvement over what the '92 World Cup looked like on the 14" tube set in my parents' bedroom is indescribable. For the record, the high definition screen I was watching was in the Electronics section of the Costco in New Rochelle, NY.

2. Is there a reason that the tournament must always be referred to as the "FIFA World Cup?" Is this to distinguish it from another World Cup? Who doesn't think soccer when one hears "World Cup?"

3. Let me address the "Why Americans Don't Like Soccer" theories as briefly as I can. The biggest reason professional soccer isn't big in America is because--are you ready for this?-- professional soccer has never been big in America. Duh. Do people really expect a sport to permanently catapult into the top American tier because of spiked interest every four years? The secondary reasons are related to our society's fascination with shiny objects, immediate results, and sex appeal. Watching soccer takes patience. Investing time to watch a soccer match does not always reward one with a winner and a loser. Americans who complain about soccer generally reveal more about themselves than they do identify flaws in the game.

4. In a related note, have those who were complaining about low scores noticed how the per-game goal counts have increased in the elimination round? That teams can strategically settle for a tie in group matches leads to conservative play. Conservative play leads to fewer goals.

5. I have heard several voices complain about the perceived ambiguity of stoppage time. However, I have not heard any of those same voices state the obvious advantages to a running clock--the greatest of which is the predictable time frame in which a soccer match is completed. Coming from a fan who must suffer through 18 Yankees-Red Sox games a year at up to four hours a match-up, regularity in game length is a breath of fresh air!

6. The US-Algeria game was the first soccer game I ever listened to on the radio. Not only could I not bring myself to turn the game off, but I was physically reacting to the drama of the moment. My stomach was in knots and my chest was pounding throughout the entire game.

7. There were some bad calls. There were just as many really bad calls. It would serve the public well to remember that we are the first generation to have the seemingly omnispective power to observe, review, and judge every single call in crystal clear, super slow-motion video. Officiating may not be getting worse--we may just be more aware of it than ever.

8. The sentiment that there is an anti-American conspiracy among FIFA officials speaks to a conceitedness than the American soccer fan hasn't earned yet.

9. From my days as a junior varsity soccer star in high school, I remember yellow cards only being awarded for fouls that were clearly intentional. Further, I can recall the issuance of perhaps three red cards in three years of playing high school soccer--those were for intentional fouls that were also malicious and/or dirty. It seemed like players in this World Cup were receiving yellow cards on a whim or for sneezing at someone.

10. To my admittedly untrained eye, it seemed like the American team doesn't quite possess its own style of play. Watching the US team look tentative and give up a goal early in nearly every match made it seem like they were starting each game waiting to react to the other team's plan of attack. It never seemed like the US set out to take control of the tempo or style. Maybe we're not that good yet.

11. The brazen deception of the Ghana players in the closing minutes of the elimination game against the US was offensive. I know soccer players are bred to hit the grass writhing in pain if they're even given a dirty look, but such excessive, obviously fabricated/phantom injuries were beyond the pale.

Christianity and Liberalism - Introduction

It occurred to me recently that I have been a member of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church my entire life and I had never read anything by J. Gresham Machen. I started my first reading of his classic work Christianity and Liberalism earlier this year and have almost completed it.

From the first chapter, I have been struck with Machen's clarity and conviction of truth. His language is not flowery or grandiose, but his statements are as fine and sharp as a scalpel. In clear, concise language he identifies the errors in liberal theology as they are manifested in a number of ways, and Machen calls the reader to instead see and believe what God's Word says.

Each chapter addresses one way in which liberal doctrine/theology conflicts with, or is in complete contradiction to orthodox Christianity. The chapter list is as follows: Introduction, Doctrine, God and Man, The Bible, Christ, Salvation, The Church. Read piecemeal or collectively, the chapters reinforce Machen's bold conclusion: Liberalism is not Christianity, but is, in fact, a completely different and false religion.

Below are some excerpts from the chapter titled Introduction (the entire chapter can be read here). Any bold face type is my own emphasis.

"Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding...Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from "controversial" matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight."

"Vastly more important than all questions with regard to methods of preaching is the root question as to what it is that shall be preached."

"The modern world represents in some respects an enormous improvement over the world in which our ancestors lived; but in other respects it exhibits a lamentable decline. The improvement appears in the physical conditions of life, but in the spiritual realm there is a corresponding loss. The loss is clearest, perhaps, in the realm of art. Despite the mighty revolution which has been produced in the external conditions of life, no great poet is now living to celebrate the change; humanity has suddenly become dumb. Gone, too, are the great painters and the great musicians and the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative, and where it is not imitative it is usually bizarre.”

“This unprecedented decline in literature and art is only one manifestation of a more far-reaching phenomenon; it is only one instance of that narrowing of the range of personality which has been going on in the modern world. The whole development of modern society has tended mightily toward the limitation of the realm of freedom for the individual man. The tendency is most clearly seen in socialism; a socialistic state would mean the reduction to a minimum of the sphere of individual choice. Labor and recreation, under a socialistic government, would both be prescribed, and individual liberty would be gone... It never seems to occur to modern legislatures that although "welfare" is good, forced welfare may be bad. In other words, utilitarianism is being carried out to its logical conclusions; in the interests of physical well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly to the winds.”

“The result is an unparalleled impoverishment of human life. Personality can only be developed in the realm of individual choice. And that realm, in the modern state, is being slowly but steadily contracted. The tendency is making itself felt especially in the sphere of education. The object of education, it is now assumed, is the production of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But the greatest happiness for the greatest number, it is assumed further, can be defined only by the will of the majority. Idiosyncrasies in education, therefore, it is said, must be avoided, and the choice of schools must be taken away from the individual parent and placed in the hands of the state...Such a result is being slightly delayed in America by the remnants of Anglo-Saxon individualism, but the signs of the times are all contrary to the maintenance of this halfway position; liberty is certainly held by but a precarious tenure when once its underlying principles have been lost...The dominant tendency, even in a country like America, which formerly prided itself on its freedom from bureaucratic regulation of the details of life, is toward a drab utilitarianism in which all higher aspirations are to be lost.”

“A public school system, in itself, is indeed of enormous benefit to the race. But it is of benefit only if it is kept healthy at every moment by the absolutely free possibility of the competition of private schools. A public school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument of tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny…is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted thought at least to be free.”

“But whatever solution be found for the educational and social problems of our own country, a lamentable condition must be detected in the world at large. It cannot be denied that great men are few or nonexistent, and that there has been a general contracting of the area of personal life. Material betterment has gone hand in hand with spiritual decline.”

“In setting forth the current liberalism, now almost dominant in the Church, over against Christianity, we are animated, therefore, by no merely negative or polemic purpose; on the contrary, by showing what Christianity is not we hope to be able to show what Christianity is, in order that men may be led to turn from the weak and beggarly elements and have recourse again to the grace of God.”