This book, by Ralph Woodrow, has been in the Huron Valley Fellowship Library for some twenty years or more. I was the one that first ordered it. I had read some really good stuff by Mr. Woodrow, and was excited about adding this book to the collection, and getting around to reading it someday.
My Dad read it shortly after we ordered it. And at the time he said that it was "okay - not that great."
So here, finally, years later, I was able to read through this rather short (143 pages) and quite readable volume.
Dad was right. There are two big problems with this book:
1) There are few actual "discoveries" from the Bible ("The Prayer of Jabez," for instance - now that was a discovery!)
2) What few unique items there are in this book, are really not that amazing.
So I am going to suggest that the casual reader, or Bible student, not read this book. There is not much there. And it is too full of goofy little jokes, peppered throughout, that are neither biblical nor amazing, and is escapes me why Brother Woodrow felt he had to include this stuff. Example:
"It wasn't the apple on the tree that caused trouble; it was the pair (pear) on the ground." Little tidbits like this are scattered throughout, and they are a distraction.
However, I must say that there are some high points - which are momentous enough to merit discussion. The section on Jonah, pages 37 thru 40, is outstanding, and I daresay Woodrow's insights here are not likely to be found anywhere else. And yes, his explanation as to why Jonah was sent to Ninevah does border on the amazing.
And there is at least one half-way decent joke; one you are not likely to have read dozens of times already on one of those replaceable letter signs in front of churches. Take this one, on page 104: "How many wives does the Bible allow for each man? Answer: Sixteen (four better, four worse, four richer, four poorer)".
And Woodrow makes the valid observation, on page 106, that the expression "immortal soul" appears only once in the Bible and is applied to God. And he notes that the title "reverend" is applied never to a preacher, but to God himself.
He points out many other popular phrases or concepts that never appear in Scripture, like on pages 109 and 100, where he mentions the words "Trinity," "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," and "rapture."
These points, at least, may lead to some vigorous and loving debate among people that love the Lord, and His Word.
The book picks up some steam, and ends on a strong note. The final section, devoted to all the uses of the word "River" in the Bible (there is a River in the Garden, and a River in the New Jerusalem - and rivers figure prominently throughout Scripture) is perhaps the best of the entire book.
If all of this has your attention, then maybe you will want to reference the better sections in my comments - without having to read the entire book. If so, call me, and let's talk!
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The American Presidency in Political Cartoons, 1776-1976
This book, by Thomas C. Blaisdell, Jr., and Peter Selz, was fascinating to me, when I first came across it at the Little Professor bookstore in Maple Village Plaza in 1976. It was just one of dozens, or hundreds of books coming out that year, having a connection to the American Bicentennial.
I was a sixteen years old browsing books, took one look at it, and bought it.
This book, however, is a drudgery to read. It is thirty-two years later, and I finally read through the entire thing for the first time. The problem is that, until about 1940, most of the "cartoons" (a mis-used word. A "Cartoon" is the name for the first moving pictures of animated characters. "Carte", or "story", or "drawing", plus "toon", or "tune": a story set to music. Drawings that actually move, a la the earliest Disney cartoons that had no dialogue, just music in the background), are extremely difficult to follow. One single drawing might have dozens of lines of dialogue, written very small.
And next, the book is written more as a college textbook, and as such is a dry read. The text accompanying the drawings has more to do with style of the illustrations, than on discussing the history addressed in the drawings.
But by the Twentieth Century, the drawings take on more of an artistic tone. More of the message is contained in the artwork itself, than in the dialogue.
The book is of interest only to people that want to become political editorialists, or on the most serious Presidential history nut. I would not recommend it to anybody else to read.
And, the liberal bent of the authors is so pronounced, as to distract from enjoying the book on its own merits.
I was a sixteen years old browsing books, took one look at it, and bought it.
This book, however, is a drudgery to read. It is thirty-two years later, and I finally read through the entire thing for the first time. The problem is that, until about 1940, most of the "cartoons" (a mis-used word. A "Cartoon" is the name for the first moving pictures of animated characters. "Carte", or "story", or "drawing", plus "toon", or "tune": a story set to music. Drawings that actually move, a la the earliest Disney cartoons that had no dialogue, just music in the background), are extremely difficult to follow. One single drawing might have dozens of lines of dialogue, written very small.
And next, the book is written more as a college textbook, and as such is a dry read. The text accompanying the drawings has more to do with style of the illustrations, than on discussing the history addressed in the drawings.
But by the Twentieth Century, the drawings take on more of an artistic tone. More of the message is contained in the artwork itself, than in the dialogue.
The book is of interest only to people that want to become political editorialists, or on the most serious Presidential history nut. I would not recommend it to anybody else to read.
And, the liberal bent of the authors is so pronounced, as to distract from enjoying the book on its own merits.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era
I enjoyed reading this excellent work by Arthur S. Link. It covers the Progressive Movement in America, starting with Theodore Roosevelt's second term, all the way through the very beginning of Woodrow Wilson's second. But most of the book deals with President Wilson's first term, where there was a flourishing of the Progressive agenda: Income Tax, Labor reform, anti-trust legislation, direct election of Senators, and the establishment of a foreign policy based on morality and human rights.
Link does not go overboard in hero worship of Wilson, which I'll admit is something that I had readied myself for. He addresses Wilson's imperfections, his ego and self-righteousness. The same qualities that enabled him to steer one of the most ambitious reform administrations in U.S. history, also contributed to his eventual fall from grace and effectiveness in his second term.
The "6th year" jinx plagued every American President in the 20th Century. Truman had his troubles in Korea and labor problems. Eisenhower lost Congress in the midst of Soviet expansion. LBJ had the escalating war in Vietnam and unrest in the streets. Nixon had Watergate. For Reagan, it was Contragate; Clinton, Monica Lewinsky; and Bush II, the Iraq pre-surge stalemate and economic woes.
Even FDR had his troubles, which, while he was able to win re-election not once, but three times, still his popularity and effectiveness waned throughout his administration. Had there not been the rise of the Nazi menace in Europe, he may very well have been forced into retirement in 1940.
President Wilson had his obsessive push for ratification of the League of Nations Charter. He pinned his legacy on it, and it ruined him. This book deals with the good times of his administration.
But ninety-two years hence, President Wilson's legacy is secure. He ranks up there with the "Near Great" to "Great Presidents," due to his skillful marshaling of the Progressive agenda, and effective management of our victorious war effort. Indeed, he has always been one of my favorite Presidents.
My primary "take-away" from this book, is a clearer understanding of the immense significance of Wilson's term. Prior to 1912, the Progressive (liberal) movement could have gone either way. It was up to Theodore Roosevelt, or Wilson, to carry the banner of Progressivism into the White House. Roosevelt, by failing to win the Republican nomination, bolted the party and ensured both his and incumbent President Taft's election by running under the standard of the newly-formed Progressive Party.
Had Roosevelt been elected in 1912, or even in 1916 or 1920, his Progressive Party may have eclipsed the Republican Party, leaving the conservative element to settle in the Democratic Party under the leadership of its Southern wing. The Progressive movement would have been permanently married to the strong, militaristic, and even imperialistic vision of Roosevelt. His social morality and early advocacy of equal rights for minorities would have found a home in his brand of progressivism. And the modern environmentalist movement would likewise have been elevated to a major tenet for the Progressives.
But Wilson carried the day, and secured for the Progressives, a home in the Democratic Party. Thus began the Democrats' historic and permanent linkage as the party of economic equality and electoral reform. Civil Rights and the Environment would wait until another day. The hawkish tendencies, and linkage to the rights of business, of the Republicans, were also cemented during the Wilson years.
The Democratic Party that followed: that of FDR, of Truman and JFK, of LBJ and Jimmy Carter; indeed, of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - would not have been, had Woodrow Wilson not been so successful in laying the foundation a little less than one hundred years ago.
I hope that President Obama studies the lessons of Woodrow Wilson well. Make the most of the first term. Get your agenda through. Steer a middle course (as Wilson did) so that the most important elements of your program may become law. But beware of the pitfalls of the second term!
This book is a must-read for all students of American history.
Link does not go overboard in hero worship of Wilson, which I'll admit is something that I had readied myself for. He addresses Wilson's imperfections, his ego and self-righteousness. The same qualities that enabled him to steer one of the most ambitious reform administrations in U.S. history, also contributed to his eventual fall from grace and effectiveness in his second term.
The "6th year" jinx plagued every American President in the 20th Century. Truman had his troubles in Korea and labor problems. Eisenhower lost Congress in the midst of Soviet expansion. LBJ had the escalating war in Vietnam and unrest in the streets. Nixon had Watergate. For Reagan, it was Contragate; Clinton, Monica Lewinsky; and Bush II, the Iraq pre-surge stalemate and economic woes.
Even FDR had his troubles, which, while he was able to win re-election not once, but three times, still his popularity and effectiveness waned throughout his administration. Had there not been the rise of the Nazi menace in Europe, he may very well have been forced into retirement in 1940.
President Wilson had his obsessive push for ratification of the League of Nations Charter. He pinned his legacy on it, and it ruined him. This book deals with the good times of his administration.
But ninety-two years hence, President Wilson's legacy is secure. He ranks up there with the "Near Great" to "Great Presidents," due to his skillful marshaling of the Progressive agenda, and effective management of our victorious war effort. Indeed, he has always been one of my favorite Presidents.
My primary "take-away" from this book, is a clearer understanding of the immense significance of Wilson's term. Prior to 1912, the Progressive (liberal) movement could have gone either way. It was up to Theodore Roosevelt, or Wilson, to carry the banner of Progressivism into the White House. Roosevelt, by failing to win the Republican nomination, bolted the party and ensured both his and incumbent President Taft's election by running under the standard of the newly-formed Progressive Party.
Had Roosevelt been elected in 1912, or even in 1916 or 1920, his Progressive Party may have eclipsed the Republican Party, leaving the conservative element to settle in the Democratic Party under the leadership of its Southern wing. The Progressive movement would have been permanently married to the strong, militaristic, and even imperialistic vision of Roosevelt. His social morality and early advocacy of equal rights for minorities would have found a home in his brand of progressivism. And the modern environmentalist movement would likewise have been elevated to a major tenet for the Progressives.
But Wilson carried the day, and secured for the Progressives, a home in the Democratic Party. Thus began the Democrats' historic and permanent linkage as the party of economic equality and electoral reform. Civil Rights and the Environment would wait until another day. The hawkish tendencies, and linkage to the rights of business, of the Republicans, were also cemented during the Wilson years.
The Democratic Party that followed: that of FDR, of Truman and JFK, of LBJ and Jimmy Carter; indeed, of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - would not have been, had Woodrow Wilson not been so successful in laying the foundation a little less than one hundred years ago.
I hope that President Obama studies the lessons of Woodrow Wilson well. Make the most of the first term. Get your agenda through. Steer a middle course (as Wilson did) so that the most important elements of your program may become law. But beware of the pitfalls of the second term!
This book is a must-read for all students of American history.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Faust . . . Whew!
I had always wanted to read von Goethe's classic Faust. It gets referenced alot in historical and biographical works. It seems to be a foundational work in Western thought. I knew that it had some kind of allegorical connection to the Book of Job. And I knew that, one day, I would read it.
So, about a year ago, I picked it up, and began to read. It took me about a year to get through it. It was easy to put down and forget about for periods of time. I was cognizant of reading entire passages, and groups of pages, without really getting what was going on.
I was surprised to find that it is written as a play, and also in a poetic form. There is a rhyme in every single line. I marveled at the translator, who, by recreating it in English from the original German, did so while setting forth the rhymes as in German. This struck me as perhaps more brilliant than von Goethe's putting it to paper in the first place!
The work was begun circa 1810, in Germany, and completed in 1832. This is a period of time in German history, when my forbears, the Gottlied Durr family, were contemplating a move to the United States. I did wonder about this factor as I read. What was it in German life, that brought about such a great piece of literature, at the same time that many Germans were leaving their homeland for a better life across the Atlantic?
The piece does seem to be infused with a lot of cynicism. The primary theme has to do with the relationship of Mephistopheles (Satan) and the protagonist, Faust. Faust is like so many of us - wanting more out of this life: love, wealth, fame, power. He promises his allegiance to Satan, if he could produce a romantic liaison with the object of Faust's affections, the virtuous Gretchen. The meeting comes about, ultimately resulting in the deflowering of Gretchen. From there Faust's life begins to degrade morally, in parallel with his stunning ascension to power and wealth.
But even here, I am not sure if I am getting all of this right! The middle part of the book detours into all these dialogues between mythological characters, peppered with biblical and historical references. There is a storyline developing in the Heavenly places, that parallels Faust's own life. A classic "good versus evil" theme permeates, but there is ample gray area here. The life promoted by Mephistopheles is none other than a conventional ladder of success most coveted in modern Western culture. Work hard, meet the right people, hang out with the best looking women and most powerful men, worry not about moral ambiguity; go for the gusto and live the good life.
Mephistopheles makes a strong, convincing case for living this life, while portraying the virtuous life as boring, vain, of no point. Indeed, the most interesting and engaging character in Faust is the Devil himself! And as such, the story prefigures the modern era's Western collapse, resulting from a decaying moral code.
But . . . I may be totally wrong here. I did manage to jot down some very powerful points made. Here is a sample of some of my favorites:
It's true, at last we all depend
On creatures we ourselves created.
And, this from one of the "Four Grey Women", the one named "Worry":
Whom I once possess will ever
Find the world not worth endeavor;
Endless gloom around him being,
Rise nor set of sun he's seeing.
Be each outer sense excelling,
Still is darkness in him dwelling;
He cannot through any measures
Make him lord of any treasures.
All luck turns into caprices;
Him midst plenty hunger seizes.
Be it joy or be it sorrow,
He postpones it till the morrow,
Waiting for the future ever
And therefore achieving never.
It is full of excellent prose and wisdom like this, but you have to be very diligent to catch it when your eyes pass over it.
I had thought the book a tragedy, and this is how I expected it to end. Yet, we find the "immortal part" of Faust being taken up to Heaven, while his mortal part is being dealt with by the demons in the underworld. This of course does not square with orthodoxy. His soul, too, is unconscious upon leaving his body. As it is being heralded upward, it does not awake. In many ways it seems a highly impersonal entity. It is just some living part that is aware of nothing. We have the sense that, once dead, Faust is indeed, gone. He is dead, and thus is no more. His immortal part is with us, yet inanimate. And is this not what our senses tell us anyway?
So, I'm not sure what the whole point was. The man spent his life in league with the devil, and ends up "saved" anyway.
It sounds like another reading is in order, and participation in a Faust disussion group! But if you want to fill your repertoire with the greatest works in history, definitely read Faust!
So, about a year ago, I picked it up, and began to read. It took me about a year to get through it. It was easy to put down and forget about for periods of time. I was cognizant of reading entire passages, and groups of pages, without really getting what was going on.
I was surprised to find that it is written as a play, and also in a poetic form. There is a rhyme in every single line. I marveled at the translator, who, by recreating it in English from the original German, did so while setting forth the rhymes as in German. This struck me as perhaps more brilliant than von Goethe's putting it to paper in the first place!
The work was begun circa 1810, in Germany, and completed in 1832. This is a period of time in German history, when my forbears, the Gottlied Durr family, were contemplating a move to the United States. I did wonder about this factor as I read. What was it in German life, that brought about such a great piece of literature, at the same time that many Germans were leaving their homeland for a better life across the Atlantic?
The piece does seem to be infused with a lot of cynicism. The primary theme has to do with the relationship of Mephistopheles (Satan) and the protagonist, Faust. Faust is like so many of us - wanting more out of this life: love, wealth, fame, power. He promises his allegiance to Satan, if he could produce a romantic liaison with the object of Faust's affections, the virtuous Gretchen. The meeting comes about, ultimately resulting in the deflowering of Gretchen. From there Faust's life begins to degrade morally, in parallel with his stunning ascension to power and wealth.
But even here, I am not sure if I am getting all of this right! The middle part of the book detours into all these dialogues between mythological characters, peppered with biblical and historical references. There is a storyline developing in the Heavenly places, that parallels Faust's own life. A classic "good versus evil" theme permeates, but there is ample gray area here. The life promoted by Mephistopheles is none other than a conventional ladder of success most coveted in modern Western culture. Work hard, meet the right people, hang out with the best looking women and most powerful men, worry not about moral ambiguity; go for the gusto and live the good life.
Mephistopheles makes a strong, convincing case for living this life, while portraying the virtuous life as boring, vain, of no point. Indeed, the most interesting and engaging character in Faust is the Devil himself! And as such, the story prefigures the modern era's Western collapse, resulting from a decaying moral code.
But . . . I may be totally wrong here. I did manage to jot down some very powerful points made. Here is a sample of some of my favorites:
It's true, at last we all depend
On creatures we ourselves created.
And, this from one of the "Four Grey Women", the one named "Worry":
Whom I once possess will ever
Find the world not worth endeavor;
Endless gloom around him being,
Rise nor set of sun he's seeing.
Be each outer sense excelling,
Still is darkness in him dwelling;
He cannot through any measures
Make him lord of any treasures.
All luck turns into caprices;
Him midst plenty hunger seizes.
Be it joy or be it sorrow,
He postpones it till the morrow,
Waiting for the future ever
And therefore achieving never.
It is full of excellent prose and wisdom like this, but you have to be very diligent to catch it when your eyes pass over it.
I had thought the book a tragedy, and this is how I expected it to end. Yet, we find the "immortal part" of Faust being taken up to Heaven, while his mortal part is being dealt with by the demons in the underworld. This of course does not square with orthodoxy. His soul, too, is unconscious upon leaving his body. As it is being heralded upward, it does not awake. In many ways it seems a highly impersonal entity. It is just some living part that is aware of nothing. We have the sense that, once dead, Faust is indeed, gone. He is dead, and thus is no more. His immortal part is with us, yet inanimate. And is this not what our senses tell us anyway?
So, I'm not sure what the whole point was. The man spent his life in league with the devil, and ends up "saved" anyway.
It sounds like another reading is in order, and participation in a Faust disussion group! But if you want to fill your repertoire with the greatest works in history, definitely read Faust!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)