Books

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Unsatisfactory Satisfaction (Part 2)

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 5: Satisfaction for Sin

If you haven’t read the first part yet, I recommend that you take a look. This post is a direct continuation of the previous.

2. The cross satisfied the law

This view is also suggested in the Witch’s conversation with Aslan:

“‘Fool,’ said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, ‘do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.'”
~C.S. Lewis, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

Sin is violation of the law–and to fail to punish it would be to fail to satisfy the law. Stott gives a human example of this in the law that had Daniel thrown into the lion’s den. Even though King Darius really didn’t want to throw Daniel into the den, he had no choice but to do it. Even he was not above the law he had created.

This view has some utility and some Scriptural support. The Bible makes clear that the wages of sin are death. That price had to be paid. Sin has a curse associated with it. Jesus bore that curse.

Yet this view fails in that it subjects God to the law, as though God were “caught in a technical legal muddle.” Stott quotes R.W. Dale in saying that “God’s connection with the law is ‘not a relation of subjection but of identity….In God the law is alive; it reigns on his throe, sways his sceptre, is crowned with his glory.’ For the law is the expression of his own moral being, and his moral being is always self-consistent.”

3. The cross satisfied God’s honour and justice.

This view is likely to hold great appeal to Piper fans. It suggests that our sin is a dishonoring of God’s name, taking away the honor that is due Him, and that “God upholds nothing more justly than he doth the honour of his own dignity.”

Quoting Anselm (an early proponent of this view):

“Man the sinner owes to God, on account of sin, what he cannot repay, and unless he repays it he cannot be saved….There is no one who can make this satisfaction except God himself…But no one ought to make it except man; otherwise man does not make satisfaction….It is necessary that one who is God-man should make it.”
~from The Cross of Christ

C.S. Lewis takes a similar tack to explain the necessity of the Incarnation in Mere Christianity.

The reformers took on this view and the former, claiming that Christ’s death provided a double satisfaction: of God’s law and of God’s justice.

Again, this view has utility and Biblical support–but it has the same flaw as the second view. It suggests that somehow God is subservient to justice.

While the first view (discussed yesterday) was mostly wrong, these two views are mostly right. Yet none of the models that have been mentioned so far are satisfactory to Stott (or to me as Stott leads me along.) They’re missing something, some vital element.

What is satisfied at the cross if not the devil?
What is satisfied at the cross if not the law?
What is satisfied at the cross if not God’s honor and justice?

I’m getting long again, so this chapter will spill into another day. I promise you, though–only ONE more day! :-)

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Unsatisfactory satisfaction (Part 1)

3 Comments by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 5: Satisfaction for Sin

Satisfaction is a frankly theological term–and one it is hard to come to grips with. Stott writes:

“How, people ask, can we possibly believe that God needed some kind of ‘satisfaction’ before he was prepared to forgive, and that Jesus Christ provided it by enduring as our ‘substitute’ the punishment we sinners deserved? Are not such notions unworthy of the God of the biblical revelation, a hangover from primitive superstitions, indeed frankly immoral?”
~John Stott, The Cross of Christ

Merriam-Webster’s entry for satisfaction gives me little satisfaction.

Satisfaction
1 a : the payment through penance of the temporal punishment incurred by a sin b : reparation for sin that meets the demands of divine justice
2 a : fulfillment of a need or want b : the quality or state of being satisfied : contentment c : a source or means of enjoyment : gratification
3 a : compensation for a loss or injury : atonement, restitution b : the discharge of a legal obligation or claim c : vindication
4 : convinced assurance or certainty

Okay, so it mentions a theological meaning–but still, this seems difficult. Who’s doing the satisfying? Who or what is being satisfied? This definition doesn’t really cut it.

Stott describes four historical and contemporary views on satisfaction.

1. The cross satisfied the devil’s demands

This view suggests that humans, having sold themselves into slavery to the devil, are satan’s property, and can only be ransomed (bought back) if the devil’s conditions are met. I find a bit of this view in C.S. Lewis’ description of Aslan’s conversation with the White Witch regarding Edmund:

“‘Tell you?’ said the Witch, her voice growing suddenly shriller. ‘…You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and the for every treachery I have a right to a kill.’

‘And so,’ continued the witch, ‘that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property.’

‘Come and take it then,’ said the Bull with the man’s head in a great bellowing voice.

‘Fool,’ said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, ‘do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.’

‘It is very true,’ said Aslan, ‘I do not deny it.'”
~C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

Here the Witch (the devil) stakes her claim on the lives of all traitors (sinners). Aslan (God) does not deny it. Instead, he dies in the traitor’s place to satisfy the witch’s demand for blood while satisfying his own love for Edmund the traitor.

There is certainly appeal to this view. It lets the devil be the “bad guy”, the one responsible for the particularly grotesque display that is the cross.

Yet there is a profound problem with this view as well. It gives the devil too much power. It gives him power over even God Himself. It makes God subject to satan’s demands.

No, the satisfaction obtained at the cross was not a satisfaction of the devil’s demands.

Since I’m getting a bit long-winded here and still have three more views to discuss, I’ll be stretching this chapter into a couple of posts. Check back tomorrow for the rest.

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

The Cross: Righteousness and Peace Have Kissed

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 4: The Problem of Forgiveness

In chapter 4, Stott addresses the question of why the cross was necessary to grant us forgiveness of sins. In essence, the question is:

Why can’t God forgive us without requiring a bloody, gruesome death of His Son?

This is a common question and one that is frequently brought up by Christians and non-Christians alike. The cross is detestable, disgusting, reprehensible. If God is love, how could He do such a thing? How could He cause the cruel death of His Son? Many people would like to believe in a universalist God–all Teddy Bear, no judgment. Others decry God as taking sadomasochist pleasure in torturing His Son.

Clearly, this is an important point to grapple with–and our conclusions regarding it have far-reaching implications for how we view God and humanity.

In order to understand the necessity of the cross for securing our forgiveness, we must become aware of the righteousness of God, the gravity of sin, and our culpability as sinners.

Why can God not “simply” forgive sinners?

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because sin is a big deal. Sin is not simply a “mistake” or a “mess-up”. Sin is an act of rebellion against God. Sin is defiance not only against God’s law, but against God’s very nature.

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because sinners are culpable for their sins. We are not automatons “forced” into rebellion against God by no choice of our own. True, our wills have been corrupted by original sin. But even still, we will to rebel against God. God did not create us sinners and then punish us for the sin He created us to do–no, we chose sin, chose rebellion, and willingly walk in it.

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because God is righteous. He is completely pure, spotless, without blemish. He is far above and is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, just and unjust. He is holy, separate, distinct from evil. He cannot embrace the impure, the spotted, the blemished, the wrong, the unjust, the profane, the evil–or else He will no longer be righteous and holy.

God’s holiness demands that He cannot merely “forget” our sins and embrace us. Our sins must be punished. What’s more, because we are sinners, not only our actions but our selves must be punished. Our sins–and we as sinners–must bear the wrath of God.

This is the beauty of the cross

In the cross, Jesus Christ bore our sins, became our sin–and fully bore the wrath of God in Himself. God’s wrath satisfied, He is now free to forgive without compromising His nature. In the cross, righteousness and peace have kissed.

“Mercy and truth have met together;
Righteousness and peace have kissed.”
Psalm 85:10

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Why Did Christ Die?

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 3: Looking below the surface

I feel a bit guilty to be merely summarizing Stott’s main points in this chapter–yet his points are so good, I feel they require little comment from me. This is a fantastic intro to the significance of the cross, from Jesus’ perspective.

What is the significance of the cross?

1) Christ died for us.
2) Christ died to bring us to God
3) Christ died for our sins
4) Christ died our death

Jesus on His death

The Last Supper

1) Jesus affirmed the centrality of His death

  • The Last Supper, a commemoration of the death of Christ, was the ONLY commemorative act commanded by Jesus

2) Jesus affirmed the purpose of His death

  • Intended to create a new covenant
  • Intended to obtain forgiveness of sins

3) Jesus affirmed the necessity of personally appropriating His death

  • The disciples were commanded to eat and drink–to receive the work of Christ on their behalf

Gethsemane

4) Jesus agonizes over the wrath of God soon to be poured out on Him

  • Jesus’ agony in the garden was not over the prospect of physical pain and death, but in contemplation of the impending “cup” of God’s wrath to be poured out on Him.

The Cross

5) Jesus experienced true separation from the Father on the cross

  • In His cry “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?”, Jesus expresses true agony at the true, necessary, voluntary separation of Himself from the Father

Conclusions

When we look at the cross of Christ, we are forced to make three conclusions:
1) Our sin must be horrible
2) God’s love must be wonderful
3) Salvation must be free

“…We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
I Corinthians 1:23-24

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Who Killed Jesus?

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 2: Why Did Christ Die?

Who killed Jesus?

The Roman soldiers did. They were doing their job, carrying out the crucifixion. Jesus spoke of them when He said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Who killed Jesus?

Pilate did. He handed Jesus over to be crucified, knowing full well that He was innocent. Pilate was more interested in keeping the peace and in preserving his position than in administering justice.

Who killed Jesus?

The Sanhedrin did when they falsely accused and convicted Him of blasphemy, when they falsely accused Him of sedition and delivered Him up to Pilate to be crucified. They killed Him out of envy.

Who killed Jesus?

Judas did when he betrayed Jesus to the Sanhedrin for 30 pieces of silver, when he kissed Jesus’ cheek to direct the guards to Him.

Who killed Jesus?

The Jews did when they chanted for Pilate to “crucify Him”, when they said “Let His blood be upon our heads.”

Who killed Jesus?

We did.

“More important still, we ourselves are also guilty. If we were in their place, we would have done what they did. Indee, we have done it. For whenever we turn away from Christ, we ‘are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace’ (Heb. 6:6)….’Were you there when they crucified my Lord?’ the old negro spiritual asks. And we must answer, ‘Yes, we were there.’ Not as spectators only but as participants, guilty participants, plotting, scheming, betraying, bargaining, and handing him over to be crucified. We may try to wash our hands of responsibility like Pilate. But our attempt will be as futile as him. For there is blood on our hands. Before we can begin to see the cross as something done for us…we have to see it as something done by us….Indeed, ‘only the man who is prepared to own his share in the guilt of the cross’, wrote Canon Peter Green, ‘may claim his share in its grace’.”
John Stott, The Cross of Christ, p. 59-60

Who killed Jesus?

No one did. He gave His life for us.

“I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.”
John 10:17-18

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Under the Shadow of the Cross

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 1: The Centrality of the Cross

The Shadow of Death

John Stott describes Holman Hunt’s painting “The Shadow of Death” in the following terms:

“She looks startled (or so it seems) at her son’s cross-like shadow on the wall….Though the idea [for the painting] is historically fictitious, it is also theologically true. From Jesus’ youth, indeed even from his birth, the cross cast its shadow ahead of him. His death was central to his mission.”

How church history has viewed the cross:

Church history affirms the centrality of the cross to the Christian faith–despite (or perhaps because of) its incredibly negative connotations and propensity to be ridiculed.

How Jesus viewed the cross:

Jesus made no secret that He would suffer, die, and rise again. Throughout His ministry, He speaks of His hour. This hour did not come in teaching or in working miracles. Rather, it was in His death that His hour had come.

“‘The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified….Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? “Father, save Me from this hour”? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name.’ Then a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.'”
John 12:23, 27-28

How the apostles viewed the cross:

While the sermons of Acts do not explicitly detail the theological implications of the cross, they do all mention the cross and many allude to its implications by using the term “hung on a tree” to describe crucifixion. This phrase directs the hearer to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which proclaims a curse on all who are hung on a tree–alluding to the substitutionary nature of the cross (He became a curse for us, Galatians 3:13). Additionally, the apostles’ emphasis on the resurrection is an implicit reference to the cross, since the resurrection is the reversal of a prior sentence of death.

In the epistles, the doctrine of the cross is central to the writers’ messages. Paul, Peter, John, and the author of Hebrews all go to great length to describe the implications of the cross and its centrality to the Christian life. In the Revelation, Jesus’ primary identity is as the Lamb of God–not a reference primarily to His humility but to His death as a lamb slain for the sins of the world.

Summary:

The Cross is central to the Christian faith and is the biggest distinguisher between believers and unbelievers.

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
I Corinthians 1:18

“In the Christian theology of history, the death of Christ is the central point of history; here all the roads of the past converge; hence all the roads of the future diverge.”
~Stephen Neil

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories What's on Your Nightstand?

Nightstand (June 2010)

10 Comments by

On last month’s nightstand:

On my nightstand

What I actually read this month was…
not very much. Last month, I blamed the last few weeks of school and working on thesis–this month, I had a wedding interrupt my daily routines (definitely not an unwelcome interruption!) I’m going to have to stop making excuses and just accept that my life is such that I can’t expect to read a bazillion books a month.

Fiction

  • Washington’s Lady by Nancy Moser
    I’ve enjoyed all of Nancy Moser’s historical novels–but I think this one is my favorite. Histories do not always make the best novels because our lives are rarely as neat as we demand our fictional tales to be. Nevertheless, Moser does a good job of giving Martha Custis Washington’s story a consistent theme. It’s not an amazing book, but it is enjoyable.
  • Winter is Not Forever by Janette Oke

Nonfiction

  • The American Bar Association Complete and Easy Guide to Health Care Law
  • The Children’s Blizzard by David Laskin
    Click the link to see my review.
  • In the President’s Secret Service by Ronald Kessler
    My thoughts pretty much echo Susan’s: the behind-the-scenes stuff was great; the whining about not having enough money, enough staff, nice enough supervisors, etc. was tiresome.
  • Life’s Instructions for Wisdom, Success, and Happiness
  • Make Your Own Living Trust
  • Nolo’s Simple Will Book
  • The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller
    Click the link to see my review.
  • Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day by Joan Bolker
    Intended for doctoral students working on their dissertations, this was nevertheless helpful to me in getting past some of the inner distractions to writing my (master’s) thesis.

Juvenile

  • Children’s Picture Books author ANNO-ARNO (44 titles)
    including Kathi Appelt’s Bubba and Beau books
  • The Shortwave Mystery by Franklin Dixon

Currently in the middle of…

On my nightstand

Nonfiction

  • Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views edited by Wayne Grudem
    I had this one out via interlibrary loan and had to return it before I’d finished it. I quickly sent in a new request and quickly received a new copy. While I’m not publishing my notes from this title, I’ve been enjoying reading and making notes on the four views represented within. I think I’ve officially decided that this format is the best way to study controversial theological topics–the knowledge that other viewpoints will respond immediately to one’s argument seems to force each author to write with greater clarity and theological depth.
  • The Cross of Christ by John Stott
    I’ve just started this title, but I’m already crazy about it. After a hiatus from writing (public) book notes (thanks to writing private ones on Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?), I’m ready to jump back in. I’ll be writing public notes on this title over the course of the next month.
  • Dug Down Deep by Joshua Harris
    I’ve already read this title through–but then I suggested that our ladies fellowship group read it through and discuss it at our bimonthly meetings. They agreed, so we’re traveling through it slowly (2 chapters a month) and discussing.
  • Human Rights: Opposing Viewpoints
    I had to check this out a second time (after the first six-week period). I always enjoy the Opposing Viewpoints essays. Even though I generally end up agreeing with one side of any particular issue, I find it useful to read a variety of perspectives.
  • The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd
    I’m reading this one (two chapters per week) along with a diverse book club here in Lincoln. It’s definitely been interesting to see the differing perspectives (of book club members) on how the church is to deal with politics. So far, Boyd seems to be taking an almost Anabaptist position (separation from politics). There are some points on which I agree with him–and some points where I differ. I’m interested in seeing him develop his argument over the course of the rest of the book.
  • Superhuman by Robert Winston and Lori Oliwenstein
    This is another one I checked out a second time. It’s interesting to read about advances in medicine and the wonders of the human body–but I dislike the authors’ underlying evolutionary and Nietzschean assumptions.
  • Whom Not to Marry by Father Pat Connor
    Meh. Haven’t decided whether I like this or not. It’s directed towards women and it’s constantly making statements of “If he…., don’t marry him” but makes very little reference to what the women should be doing. There’s no corollary “If you…, don’t marry.” So basically, it reads like the man has to be perfect, but the woman can be as selfish and immature and irresponsible as she pleases.

On this month’s nightstand:

On my nightstand

Fiction

  • The Courteous Cad by Catherine Palmer
  • The Princess Bride by William Goldman
  • Solemnly Swear by Nancy Moser
  • Stardust by Neil Gaiman

Nonfiction

  • Donna Kooler’s Encyclopedia of Needlework
  • Five Aspects of Woman by Barbara Mouser
  • Holiday Crafts 2009 by Better Homes and Gardens
  • Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon
  • Stitch Sampler by Lucinda Ganderton
  • Theses–as I work on my own thesis
  • Wedding planning books
    It’s my habit to use wedding planning books to “review” after each wedding I help with and to organize my notes for what worked/what didn’t work/how I can help things run more smoothly the next time around. Yeah–I’m somewhat over-the-top as a wedding assistant. Oh well!

Juvenile
Chronicles of Narnia

  • Children’s Picture Books author ARNOLD-?
  • The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis
    I’ll be reading this (and maybe The Horse and His Boy) as part of Carrie’s Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge.

Drop by 5 Minutes 4 Books to see what others are reading.
What's on Your Nightstand?

Categories Books, The Week in Words

WiW: On Reading

3 Comments by

The Week in Words

C.J. Mahaney, on forgetting what we read

Read, but not to remember everything. Read because that 1% that you remember has to potential to change your life.

HT: Tim Challies

Some people, like my father, are capable of remembering the details of everything they’ve ever learned (although my dad is more an auditory than a written-word sort of learner). I am not one of those people. I am modestly well-read–but you wouldn’t necessarily know it to talk to me. I have a tendency to forget the gross majority of what I’ve read, leaving me with an actual knowledge base that sometimes feels only slightly higher than that of a elementary student.

This article gave me some hope that maybe I don’t HAVE to remember everything I read, that the thousands of books I’ve read and forgotten still aren’t wasted.

Doug Wilson, on how reading shapes us

Go for total tonnage, and read like someone who will forget most of it. You have my permission to forget most of it, which may or may not be reassuring, but you will forget most of it in either case. Most of what is shaping you in the course of your reading, you will not be able to remember…At the same time, mark everything striking that you read — you won’t remember everything you read, and you won’t even remember everything you mark. Nevertheless, it is not a sin to remember some things, or to mark them in a way to be able to find them again.

Another hope-inspiring message along the same lines as the first. It’s okay to forget. What I’ve read will mark my life, even if it does not enter my consciousness. On the other hand, it is worthwhile to keep a record–to make it easy to find what you’ve read.

Enter my book reviews and notes. A little secret about me. I don’t write book reviews and book notes for your benefit–I write them for mine. I find that I better remember what I’ve read if I write about it–if I engage with the material on paper. So that’s what I do. I share some of those notes with you via bekahcubed–and others I “blog” about but never post publicly. For instance, I’m currently reading Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views. I got the book on Interlibrary Loan, so I can’t write in the book, but I want to interact with it as much as possible. At the same time, I don’t feel that the internet is the best forum for discussing those theological issues that have a tendency to cause breaks in fellowship. So I’m writing my notes as normal–I’m just not posting them.

Read some quotes other bloggers have collected with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

Categories Books, Everyday Life

Impromptu Pleasures

3 Comments by

Several weeks ago, a general announcement of an upcoming book club showed up on my Facebook news feed. I read through the announcement, and while I was not a particular invitee, the book looked interesting and the announcement stated that anyone was welcome–so I clicked the “maybe attending” button.

I nearly forgot all about it in the intervening weeks, what with preparing for Tim’s graduation and Debbie’s bachelorette party, and working on my thesis and the like.

But on Sunday night, the book club made its way onto my “coming events” sidebar and I realized I had to make a decision. I read through the announcement again and decided that yes, I really did want to attend this book club.

Problem was, it was much too late to try to purchase the book online.

So I searched around all of Lincoln’s stores, trying to find the book. The next morning, I searched again. No luck. None of Lincoln’s booksellers had a copy of Gregory Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation.

When I searched at Barnes and Noble, however, I discovered that there was a copy at one of the Omaha stores.

And thus began my wild hare.

“Rebekah Menter is contemplating driving to Omaha today to pick up a book. Am I crazy?” my Facebook status read.

A friend directed me to a discussion of Evangelical politics featuring three panelists, including Greg Boyd.

I watched a few clips of the event and decided that I was DEFINITELY interested in reading this book.

My next Facebook status? “Rebekah Menter is taking a spur-of-the-moment trip to Omaha. (What I will do for a book…)”

My trip was uneventful, quiet, nice. I got the book and returned home.

What turned this into an impromptu pleasure was that, having spent an extra couple of hours of my day tracking down the book, I HAD to go to the book discussion.

And so I did.

I didn’t know anyone who was going to be there (at least I didn’t think I knew anyone)–so I wasn’t really sure how I was going to find the group in the midst of one of Lincoln’s busiest coffee shops. Thankfully, someone had the book out, so I was able to introduce myself.

“I don’t know anyone here,” I said, “but I’m here for the book club.”

At which the fellow facing away from me looked up and gave a “What are you talking about?” expression.

I guess I was wrong. I did know someone.

“Sorry, Jake. I didn’t realize you were here.”

It turned out to be a wonderful night. I enjoyed meeting new people, getting bit of an intro to the book. But most of all, I enjoyed the passionate discussion that I found myself embroiled in after the “formal” book club portion ended.

It’s been so long since I had a real, honest-to-goodness, face-to-face passionate discussion about the issues of our day. It was refreshing, energizing, invigorating (let’s see how many more synonyms I can come up with :-P).

Needless to say, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

I’m so glad I made that impromptu decision to lock myself into going.

Categories Reading My Library

Meet Bubba and Beau

1 Comment by

Bubba is the son of Big Bubba and Momma Pearl.

Beau is the puppy of Maurice and Evelyn.

Bubba and Beau are best friends. They both go around on all fours, and both are keen on chewing.

Bubba and Beau books

The Bubba and Beau books, written by Kathi Appelt and illustrated by Arthur Howard, are a hilarious set of tales about a family of Texas rednecks.

Each book boasts a full cast of characters, including Bubba, Big Bubba, Momma Pearl, Beau, Earl (the trusty pickup truck), and a whole host of other folk.

The stories are told in a mixture of Southern colloquialisms and children’s rhyming language. “Bubba and Beau loved its squishy squish. They loved its squishy squash…Sister, that mud hole was better than pickled eggs.” “Yes siree, those relatives caught up till the cows came home.” “Y’all come back now, ya hear?”

Each story tells a tale in a series of [very] short chapters, describing some typical childhood event: kids getting dirty and not wanting a bath, a baby not wanting to sleep until daddy takes him for a car ride, getting primped and kissed when relatives visit, etc.

The stories focus on childhood events, but they’re really probably of more interest to adults than to children. Mommies (or adept babysitters) will laugh at the typical description of a child’s behavior in each situation. Anyone redneck (which, in books, generally means anybody conservative) will smile and nod when Big Bubba tears up at the sight of so many flags on the stamps he buys from the post office. Anybody who knows older men, particularly of the farming variety, will enjoy the “conversation” the men have on the front porch of the Feed and Seed. “Good day to shoot the breeze.” “Yep.” “Yes siree.”

Reading My Library

This is definitely a series worth checking out the next time you’re at your local library. Even if your children don’t entirely appreciate their humor, you’ll undoubtedly get a few giggles out of this fun little set of books.

For more comments on children’s books (counting and otherwise), check out Carrie’s blog Reading My Library, which chronicles her and her children’s trip through the children’s section of their local library.