You can download it via a link here at bekahcubed for a single low price of $9.99 for 15 songs, or you can order the old-fashioned CD for $24.99 plus shipping and handling. Why such a high price for the CD when the disc and case costs less than $0.50?

Because the album cover is totally worth it. Check it out!

(Modified from an original image by Allie_Caulfield)

If you haven’t figured out yet, this is completely bogus.

My little sister “tagged” me in a Facebook meme with the following instructions:

1 – Click on the link to get a random wikipedia article. The title of the article is your band’s name. (My band)

2 – Click on the link to get a Random Quotation from “Quotations Page.com”. The last four or five words of the very last quote of the page is the title of your first album. (The quote that inspired my album)

3 – Click on a link to get some random photos from the last seven days on flickr. Third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover. (I, because I did not want to violate copyright, instead went to Yahoo Images Search and selected “Only from Flickr.com” under Site/Domain and “Creator Allows Reuse–Remix, Tweak, Build Upon” for Creative Common License. I used “image” as my search term–although you could also use “random” or another vague word.)

4 – Use photoshop or similar to put it all together. (I, being a frugal soul, use the free, open-source GIMP as my photo editing software. It’s not quite as user-friendly so I’m told, but I generally can figure out how to work it from a Photoshop tutorial–and the price is right!)

5 – Post it to FB with this text in the “caption” and TAG the friends you want to join in. (Being somewhat unfond of placing images on Facebook–or of allowing Facebook rights to any of my creative works, for that matter–I chose to share my album on bekahcubed rather than on Facebook.)

It’s perhaps the most provocative and uncomfortable of all of Piper’s statements.

It’s been the source of a dozen heated discussions between myself, my sister, and my dad. Anna and I take Piper’s side; Dad argues that Piper can’t be right. God is love (I John 4:8,16) and love does not seek its own (I Cor 13:5). Surely the whole of Scripture, the redemptive story reveals that we are uppermost in God’s affections, that God’s supreme and driving passion is for our redemption.

I don’t like to admit it to my dad, but I sympathize with his argument–an awful lot. (Believe it or not, even “perfect” homeschooled daughters like myself have difficulties admitting that they agree with their parents!)

I see Piper’s point and agree with it. God is certainly jealous for His own glory. It is certainly in man’s best interest that God be glorified rather than man. God’s glory is undoubtedly a major theme of Scripture.

But God is love. And love does not seek its own.

Piper’s response to this–that it is in man’s best interest that God be glorified rather than man–does not fully address this issue. Basically, it says that “love does not seek its own” except when we’re talking about God’s love. The rules are different for God because God’s self-seeking is for our best.

I don’t really buy that. The rules aren’t different for God–the rules exist because of who God is. Love isn’t self-seeking because God, from whom love is defined, is not self-seeking.

I’ve wrestled with this question on and off for years–and while I can’t claim to have come to a full understanding, I do feel that I have come to a position that I have some degree of peace about.

I’ll discuss my wrestlings, and the conclusion I’ve come to, a bit more next week–but first, I want to hear what you think about the topic. Is God primarily passionate for Himself, or for people? Is the idea that God is passionate for His own glory contradictory with the idea that God is love?

(This is a reflection on the first chapter of John Piper’s Desiring God. For more reflections on Desiring God, see my notes here.)

Because of this, I’ll be responding to Linda’s Flashback prompt as questions and answers instead of my usual narrative. I just haven’t the connection to movies that enables a cohesive narrative.

What movies were popular when you were growing up?

Well, since I “grew up” only recently, that’s an interesting one to answer. And since I was (and am) pretty unaware of movies, I find it hard to identify specifics. It seemed like Forrest Gump was ALWAYS on at a certain friend’s house. I think it was on television–although they could have had a video of it.

Did you go to the movies very frequently? Do you remember what was the first movie you ever saw?

Nope, not very frequently at all. My first movie watched in the theatre was Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey. I was eight years old. My second was Sense and Sensibility, two years later. I think during my peak “teenagey” years, I may have gone to one or two movies a year–and then only because someone invited me and I wanted to spend time with them.

I’ve never seen a movie in a theatre by myself. What a waste of money!

What is your favorite genre of movies?

I like, and have always liked, musicals. Apart from that? Movies based on books (that I’ve read), when the movie is a relatively faithful rendering. Does that count as a genre? (I told you I’m really much more of a book person.)

What were your favorites then, and have they withstood the test of time?

My family didn’t own a tv, or anything that could play movies until I was a teenager–so it was always a treat when we went to my grandparent’s house and could watch movies there. Our favorite, which we watched over and over and over again, was Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. My grandma’s comment, after a series of rewatchings, has entered family legend: “That movie’s all about sex and violence!”

And it is, pretty much–as are most movies, we’ve decided.

Nevertheless, it remains a favorite to this day.

Do you have any particular memories associated with movies?

My first date was to watch the extended edition of The Fellowship of the Ring at a pizza place and then to attend the midnight showing of The Two Towers on the night it first came out. It was…probably not the smartest plan for a first date. My parents had second thoughts the week before I was to go–but by then they had already said that I could…and it was far too late to get a ticket for one of my brothers to chaperone. The next year I went to the midnight showing of The Return of the King with my sister–and to the group showing of the extended editions of both of the preceding titles at a local microbrewery beforehand. Those two occasions are probably the only two times that I’ve actually been excited about seeing a movie in a theatre.

Was buying snacks a regular part of the movie experience? What was your favorite movie snack?

Nope. Sometimes Dad would buy a bucket or two of popcorn to be shared among the lot of us–but usually we went without. I can’t say I’ve ever purchased food at a theatre.

Visit Linda for more Flashback Friday posts–most of them likely much more exciting than mine!

And for the crazy stuff coming shortly that makes the lazy enjoyable!

Today I’m thankful…

…for a good night’s sleep (it’s been awhile)

…for laundry that seems to getting done more quickly than usual

…for sitting down with a fun book (expect a review of The Homeschool Liberation League in the upcoming weeks)

…for eating potato chips (yep, I bought myself some yesterday–it’s almost becoming a monthly or so habit as my family get more and more concerned about my declining weight.)

…for leftover pumpkin cake from my sister-in-law’s birthday “celebration” (aka normal-Wednesday-night-hanging-out-at-McDonalds-except-that-Rebekah-brought-cake)

…for rain and thunder and green, green grass

…for a chance to spend time with my good friend Joanna on Friday (between her vacation and my starting back up to school and her starting a new job, we haven’t spent time together for at least a MONTH!)

…for a birthday celebration for my Grandma happening on Saturday

…for a family get-away scheduled for Sunday and Monday

…for the lab I’ll be teaching on Tuesday (I always enjoy doing beverages)

…for an interview for a job I’d really like to get on Wednesday (If they were to consider me their best candidate, they’re willing to wait to have me start until January, when my other commitments are over)

…for the job I’ll be starting on Thursday

And that brings me to next week’s Thankful Thursday!

I am thankful for the full life that God has given me to enjoy–and for the empty moments found here and there throughout.

No doubt my longer-term readers have noticed the emphasis of this blog shifting from anecdotes to thinking and theology. Those who have seen my book lists have seen weightier books appearing more often on my lists–and have seen a greater emphasis on critical evaluation in my reviews. Those who know me personally have likely seen or heard some of my intellectual struggles of this past year as I’ve wrestled with the role of the miraculous gifts in today’s church, with what might appropriately induce someone to leave a church, with the role of Christians in government, with non-violence as a Christian virtue, and more.

Now, as I return to the classroom, teaching again, I still intend to exercise my mind towards the things of God–but to that I add one more goal.

I would like to stir up my passions towards God.

I want to incite within my soul such a thirst for God that I find the murky waters of this world unfulfilling. I should like to develop such a taste for God that I will turn aside from every trifle this world offers. I would like to desire God so deeply, so fully that the desire for Him drowns out every desire for any other person or thing. I should like for Him to become my consuming passion, my deepest longing, my forever quest.

I am reading John Piper’s Desiring God–and as I read, I am crying:
“Lord, awaken my hunger. Lord, awaken my thirst. Lord, awaken longing. Awaken my desire–for You.”

“I know of no other way to triumph over sin long-term than to gain a distaste for it because of a superior satisfaction in God.”
~John Piper, Desiring God

O Lord, I desire to find such superior satisfaction in You!

“…it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us…We are far too easily pleased.”
~C.S. Lewis, quoted in Desiring God

O Lord, may I not be easily pleased by the small joys this world offers.

“…This persistent and undeniable yearning for happiness was not to be suppressed, but to be glutted–on God!”
~John Piper, Desiring God

O that I may be glutted on You!

“God is glorified not only by His glory’s begin seen, but by its being rejoiced in.”
~Jonathon Edwards, quoted in Desiring God

May my life bring You glory as I rejoice in You.

“The pleasure Christian Hedonism seeks is the pleasure that is in God Himself. He is the end of our search, no the means to some further end.”
~John Piper, Desiring God

O, that I might delight in You, not as a means to my heart’s desire, but because You are my heart’s desire.

(This is a reflection on the foreword and introduction to John Piper’s Desiring God. For more reflections on Desiring God, see my notes here.)

Nebraska student drivers have an option of taking driver’s ed or of logging 50 hours of supervised driving in a variety of settings prior to getting their driver’s license. I logged most of my hours in our Ford van, driving it to church and back and back and forth from Lincoln to my grandparents’ farm in northeastern Nebraska.

So I’ve always sort of identified my parents as Ford folk.

Then, one day my brother and I got to talking. He said, “You know, the folks are pretty much GM people, aren’t they?”

I was aghast. Seriously?

Timothy began to count up the cars.

Currently, they own a Chevy Suburban, a Buick, and a Chevy Lumina.

Before that, they owned several Chevy Celebrity wagons (was it two or three?). Mom’s previous car, “The Silver Mullet”, was another GM granny car. And the precursor to the white Ford van was a red conversion van, undoubtedly GM as well. Those are the only cars Timothy remembers–and I wasn’t paying attention to makes and models of their forerunners.

Mom enlightened me in a later conversation. Turns out the second most memorable car of my childhood was also a Ford. It was a two ton all-steel Green Station wagon–a hulking behemoth we named the “Zucchini Car”. I think that might have been the car we ran into a light pole with–the light pole came down but the car didn’t have a scratch. The “Zucchini car” finally met its end when we were driving to church and saw smoke rising from the hood. We rolled into a gas station and piled out of the car while Dad made tracks inside for a fire extinguisher. We ended up walking the rest of the way to church.

So my folks really weren’t (and aren’t) brand loyal at all. They bought what was economically feasible, what could fit our family. Given the tiny tendencies of foreign cars, it’s not unsurprising that they have generally owned American-made vehicles.

I’m not sure if any of us kids have developed any brand loyalties–but it’s clear that we’ve tended towards foreign cars.

My first car was a Chevy, but I’ve since owned a Honda and a Subaru.

Now, of the four kids who own cars, only one is domestic:

I guess we’re not exactly what you could call Auto Loyalists.

We are fond of thinking of the dissipated fellow partying all night, drunken, sleeping around, and experimenting with drugs as a pleasure-seeker. We are not likely to think of the sturdy fellow who goes to school, gets a job, and raises a family as a pleasure-seeker. Instead, we call him a level-headed chap. Then there are the philanthropists and volunteers. We call them altruistic. Certainly they are not pleasure-seekers. And finally, there is the missionary who travels to a different land to face certain death. He cannot be a pleasure-seeker, we say. We either call him crazy or a hero for his self-sacrifice.

Yet each of these is a pleasure-seeker.

Pleasure seeking does not distinguish one man from another, for pleasure seeking is a trait common to man. What separates one man from another is not that he seeks pleasure, but what he seeks pleasure in.

Furthermore, what separates one man from another is his relative success at not only seeking but finding pleasure.

The dissipated man is forever chasing a fleeting pleasure, a buzz that quickly fades. The steady man may have traded these “buzzes” for the pleasures of stability and comfort. The altruistic man has denied the buzz of the dissipated man–and perhaps even the stability and comforts of the stead man–for the pleasures of “doing the right thing” or the laud of other men.

All of these are pleasure-seekers, seeking pleasure in a variety of things. Each man trades some form of pleasure for another, depending on what he feels most likely to bring him long term pleasure. Some pleasures last longer than others. None of these last forever.

The Christian does the same thing. The difference is that while all these other pleasures are earthly and momentary, the Christian knows the source of true eternal pleasure.

The Chinese believers who face certain death as they seek a way into North Korea to share the gospel of Christ crucified and risen–they do so in pursuit of pleasure. They deem Christ the highest pleasure t be found–and are thus willing to forgo even fleshly life itself in order to chase after Him.

Crazy?

Only if God is not the eternal source of pleasure.

Heroes?

Perhaps.

Or maybe just the ultimate in pleasure-seekers.

God-seekers

(This is the beginning of my notes and reflections on Desiring God by John Piper. See other notes on the same topic by clicking the Desiring God tag.)

Could it be in those days that He refused my request in order to answer my prayer?

“Mercy,” I pray.

And in His mercy, He ignores my “Uncle.”

I can’t take it anymore.

In His mercy, He keeps giving it–until I learn to cast my cares on Him.

The pain is too strong.

In His mercy, He lets the pain remain so that my faith can be refined.

I have not the power to keep fighting.

In His mercy, He keeps the fight going until at last I put down my arms.

In His severe mercy, He refuses to change my circumstances–lest in my changed circumstances, my heart should be unchanged.

A Severe Mercy–to give me not what I want, but what I need.

“It was death–Davy’s death–that was the severe mercy. There is no doubt at all that Lewis is saying precisely that. That death, so full of suffering for us both, suffering that still overwhelmed my life, was yet a severe mercy. A mercy as severe as death, a severity as merciful as love.”

~Sheldon Vanauken, A Severe Mercy

It’s a walk I almost always enjoy. Sure, my ever-laden bags start to get heavy after a while–but the distance there is great for reciting my memory verses in quiet rhythm with the staccato of my feet on pavement. And the walk back is perfect for offering the day’s burdens to the Lord in prayer.

I vary my route every so often, and once I found myself walking besides the most unusual flowers.

Huge clusters of pink flowers soaring high above the mulch, with nary a leaf in sight!

The first time I saw them, entirely by accident, I merely stopped in shock and then resumed my walk.

On my return trip I took the same route and snapped a picture.

How can they live like that? I thought. Flowers without leaves?

How do they gain their nourishment? They have no leaves to gather energy from the sun.

The next day, I had my answer. They don’t live long.

Today they are merely dead heads on swaying stalks–

A flower without leaves
can’t last long

Davene said:

“Despite the tourniquet around my arm and the needle sticking in my vein, I thoroughly enjoyed my time and–for once–didn’t regret the fact that I’m a slow bleeder. I had a book to keep me company, of course (The Autobiography of George Muller, that my dear blogging friend, Margie, sent me), and was easily transported from the mall corridor where I reclined as my blood dripped out to Bristol, England, in the days of Muller. “

It reminded me of the time when I wasn’t a slow bleeder–at all.

I generally had a hard time donating because my iron borders on low, so I had taken to dropping by the downtown blood bank location whenever I was on city campus, just so they could check.

And finally, after a half dozen or so visits in which the pin-prick revealed that my iron was too low, I was able to donate.

I settled in and they tapped my arm–and bright red blood quickly gushed into the bag. Rather than getting venous blood, the phlebotomist had managed to tap an arteriole. I donated in less than a minute.

That didn’t bother me at all, since I was always incredibly busy as a college student. I had a packed schedule, between classes and working and volunteering and extracurriculars. I was always on the go and generally somewhat sleep-deprived. So getting my donation done quickly was a major plus.

What I didn’t count on was how concerned the blood bank staff would be about my rapid donation. They worried that my blood pressure would drop too low or that I might go into shock or something–so they insisted that I stay on the chair, sipping soda for 30 minutes.

And they wouldn’t let me close my eyes.

So there I was, exhausted from running, my mind racing through the many things I still had to do that day, bound to a chair with nothing to do but without the option of napping.

It was excruciating–and the Dr. Phil on the television was definitely not making it any better!

I’m glad Davene found her donation relaxing. My donations have not always been.

Now that I can no longer donate blood (thanks to the discovery that I have very low blood volume without removing some!), I think upon donation with mixed feelings.

It’s a relief to not have to worry about scheduling donations into my already busy life–especially since I never knew if I’d actually be able to donate or not. At the same time, it’s a bummer that I can’t donate. I know how valuable blood donors are, and how necessary. My blood type is generally in high demand, and the bank is always looking for more. I just wish I could still donate.

What are your favorite blood donation stories? Don’t donate? Why not? (You should really consider it–It doesn’t take much and it provides an invaluable resource to the ill and wounded.)

On Depression as an idea about suffering:

“There is a sense in which depression has been manufactured–not as an illness, but as an idea about our suffering, its source, and its relief, about who we are that we suffer this way and who we will be when we are cured.”
~Gary Greenberg, Manufacturing Depression

Greenberg’s thesis is fascinating: that the modern medical model of depression involves distinct value judgments about what suffering is, what causes suffering, and how suffering is to be cured. As a reluctant sufferer from depression (that is, one who did not seek out a depression diagnosis), I know that I have often wondered about the implicit statements the diagnosis of “depression” seems to make about who I am and what I am experiencing.

The medical model seeks to de-personalize depression by making it “just” a disease. At the same time, how can I separate my response–that is, my willful response to my circumstances–from what the doctors would say is an involuntary, pathological response to my circumstances?

On the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM):

“The DSM is an unparalleled literary achievement. It renders the varieties of our psychospiritual suffering without any comment on where it comes from, what it means, or what ought to be done about it.”
~Gary Greenberg, Manufacturing Depression

Unlike manuals in more traditional medicine (which tend to describe etiology, symptoms, and treatment options), the DSM describes only the symptoms of a particular “mental disorder”. It pathologizes without regarding either cause or treatment, leaving sufferers in a difficult spot. They have been told that they have a problem–but since no one knows the cause, the only response can be to try to make the symptoms go away. The problem with this is that we have arbitrarily labeled these responses as unhealthy and sought to do away with them–but how do we know for sure that these responses truly are pathological? It’s an interesting thing to contemplate.

On what we really need when we need help:

“What you and I need most is not the affirmation of our stories, nor content-less, shapeless platitudes about the mysterious journey of faith, nor a morality pep talk, nor the undermining of God’s sovereignty. What we need is a glimpse of God in all his terrible splendor and wonderful weightiness.”
~Kevin DeYoung

It’s tempting, when times get tough and coping seems difficult, to think of all the things one needs: a good friend, unconditional acceptance, more sleep, less stress, an end to the struggles, an increase in medication, a check of thyroid hormones. But while some of these things may be helpful–they are not ultimately what we need when life is hard. When life is hard, what we ultimately need is to see God.

It reminds me of God’s answers to Job’s questions–more like God’s non-answers to Job’s questions. God doesn’t answer Job’s questions. He doesn’t explain the circumstances. Instead, He reveals Himself. And that’s exactly what Job needed.

“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes”
~Job 42:5-6

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

**Note: Please recognize that I do not intend to make light of the sufferings of depressed individuals. Depression can be difficult and even debilitating. Many (including myself) have benefited from the medical treatment of depression. But I don’t think this means that we should simply blindly accept the medical model of depression without evaluating its underlying assumptions about who we are and how we respond to our circumstances. And we should certainly never let medicine or other psychological therapies take the place of turning our eyes towards Jesus.**

I returned from taking Livi to the bathroom to find that Jonah had made himself a “nest” with all the living room pillows.

Livi wanted to join in the fun so she grabbed the sole remaining pillow and tried her best to make a nest as well.

Book Reviews:

• American Gospel by Jon Meacham

  Rating: ****
  Category:History of America’s Civil Religion
  Synopsis: Meacham explores America’s civil religion through the words and writings of the Founding Fathers and other American leaders
  Recommendation: If you like history or political topics, you’ll like this title. It’s quite well written.

  Read the rest of my review.

• The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd
  

  Rating: **** stars
  Category: Religion and Politics
  Synopsis: Boyd argues that “the quest for political power is destroying the church.”
  Recommendation: Many may find this book offensive (I know I was definitely tempted to take offense)–but I think Boyd’s thesis is certainly worth grappling with. Christians (particularly those who are interested in politics) would do well to read this book and wrestle through the ideas found within.

  Read the rest of my review.

• To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
  

  Rating: 5 stars
  Category: Juvenile Fiction
  Synopsis: Scout and Finch learn about life, justice, mercy, and racism when their father is appointed to defend an unjustly accused black man.
  Recommendation: An absolutely amazing treatment of the topics of human dignity, justice, and mercy–without ever being pedantic. This is a must read.

  Read the rest of my review.

Photo Albums:

• Baptisms (Kayla, Caleb, Gabrielle, Ben, Brandon, August 15)
  My photos were of pretty poor quality, but I figure something is better than nothing, right?
• Swim Party (Family and Friends, July)
  

Books for the TBR list:

• The Baseball Codes by Jason Turbow
  A history of baseball and the written and unwritten codes that govern it. Baseball is my favorite sport (although I’m still not a hard-core fan) and this book looks like an interesting intro to the stories behind baseball. (Recommended by Seth Heasley)

• Escape by Carolyn Jessop
  A memoir from a woman who escaped from the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ for Latter Day Saints, a Mormon sect. This sounds like a hard read, but one that might be good. (Recommended by S. Krishna)

News to take note of:

• Cleveland goes fascist with “smart” trash cans (HT: Instapundit)
• Catholic Dinesh D’Souza appointed president of King’s College, New York
  Carl Trueman has some interesting reflections on what this says about King’s College’s real priorities. Ostensibly, this Protestant/evangelical school seeks to “[train] young people in terms of a Christian worldview and then [send] them out to be cultural leaders.” But D’Souza, as a Catholic, does not hold to many of the central doctrinal tenets of the Protestant/evangelical worldview. This suggests that the school’s true priorities have more to do with conservative politics than with Biblical worldview.
  HT: Tim Challies

Videos worth seeing:

• “Everything in the Bible is basically about Me.” (No, not me. Him!)
  
  HT: Justin Taylor

Related to previous posts:

On similar lines with my “Heresy Hunter” case study (Part 1 and Part 2)

• Kevin DeYoung continues talking about the “Ministry of Rebuke”
  • When to Rebuke
  • How to Rebuke
• Sandra Peoples talks about What “Judge Not” really means

What are you reading right now?

Founding Faith by Steven Waldman.

Oddly, that’s all I currently have going. I expect that to shortly change :-)

Do you have an e-reader?

No sirree, Bob! I’m a paper and ink girl–a semi-Neo-Luddite (as much as one can be while being an avid blogger, that is!)

Do you prefer to read one book at a time, or several at once?

I’m always reading several books at once–but I like there to be only one fiction title going at a time. I have a harder time keeping fiction plots and characters straight if I’ve got more than one going at a time. So fiction generally gets read in fits and bursts instead of a few chapters a day like the rest of my reading.

Have your reading habits changed since starting a blog?

Yeah–I started keeping my books out of the library forever so that I could get them all reviewed! I also occasionally wonder “How will this look in my Nightstand post?” But I never censor my reading for Nightstand posts, even though I’ve thought of doing so. What you see is what you get–although it doesn’t always mean what you think :-)

How often do you read out of your comfort zone?

Less often than I’d like. But there are just too many books to be read–and too many IN my comfort zone to keep me busy.

What is your reading comfort zone?

Girlie novels (certain Christian romance novelists, chick lit, stuff that’s all about interpersonal relationships), Juvenile and YA fairy tale adaptions, memoirs, sociological type stuff. Okay–my reading comfort zone is pretty wide. It’s easier to say what ISN’T in my comfort zone than what is.

What ISN’T in my comfort zone is mysteries, suspense, science fiction, smutty romance novels, and fiction that makes you think. (It’s the fiction that makes you think that I’d prefer to read more of, by the way).

Favorite place to read?

In the bathtub.

What is your policy on book lending?

I only lend books I own :-)

and books that I know the library doesn’t own.

Otherwise I direct people to the library.

Christian living/theology/doctrine books, I lend out carefully on a few conditions:

1. I have to know who has what
2. The person I loaned the book to has to actually read the book
3. The person I loaned the book to has to be willing to either write notes in the margins or discuss the book with me once they’re done or both!

Do you ever write in the margins of your books?

Of MY books, absolutely. Generally, though, I only write in nonfiction titles–I write arguments, Scripture references, other thoughts, etc. And, as I mentioned above, I beg anyone I loan books to to do the same.

What makes you love a book?

I love a book that I don’t have to work too hard to get into =). And I like if it portrays good and evil as good and evil. I like…

Man, that’s a hard question. I’m not sure what makes me love a book. I just know that I love it.

What will inspire you to recommend a book?

For fiction, if it is well-written, engaging, accurately depicts reality (good and evil, interpersonal relationships, etc.), and has some cross-genre appeal. Otherwise, I tend to qualify my recommendation as to where it fits within the genre.

For nonfiction, if it is well-written, engaging, and addresses a valuable topic in what I deem to be a thoughtful (or at least thought-provoking) manner.

Genre you rarely read (but wish you did?)

Fiction that makes me think. I tend to want to turn off my brain when it comes to fiction–but from my brief forays into fiction that makes me think, I know that it’s worthwhile. I just don’t take/make the time and mental energy to read them.

Favorite biography?

That’s a tough one. I tend to remember the person being “biographed” rather than the biography itself. The only thing that comes to mind is not strictly a biography–more an autobiography or a memoir. But I love Corrie ten Boom’s Hiding Place

Most inspirational book you’ve read this year (fiction or non-fiction)?

I haven’t read much from the “inspirational” front this year. I’ve been more into the “get down to the nitty-gritty, challenge your faith, figure out what you believe” front. Lots of exercising my mind towards the things of God, not a lot of “heart-warming” stuff.

How do you feel about giving bad/negative reviews?

Not sure how I feel about it. I do give negative reviews. But whether I should, and how I choose which books to review (even though I had a negative impression of them)? I guess I give negative reviews when I think there’s a good possibility that some people could be led astray by the book if they don’t read some truth about it, or if a book had pros and cons, or if I expected a book to be good based on other reviews, book jacket flaps, whatever and was disappointed.

Most intimidating book you’ve ever read?

Plato’s Republic. I was in sixth grade. I wasn’t intimidated then. I am now! Then, of course, I didn’t feel the challenge of having to understand it. I read it, but didn’t understand it. Now I’m frightened.

Most intimidating book you’re too nervous to begin?

Tolstoy’s War and Peace and Anna Karenina. Despite reading and enjoying everything my library owns by Tolstoy apart from these two titles, I’m still intimidated. It’s a Russian novelist thing. I’ll get over it eventually.

Favorite fictional character?

Elizabeth Bennet

The longest I’ve gone without reading.

Summer 2006, Jacksonville Florida. Two months. Only read the Bible. Challenging. Growing. It was my “Summer of One Book.”

Apart from that? I don’t think I’ve ever gone more than a day since I learned to read. And I’m not exaggerating at all. (Just ask my mother and siblings!)

What distracts you easily when you’re reading?

My sisters shrieking wildly because my brother had just proposed to his girlfriend.

Other than that, I am NOT easily distracted. I was one of seven children, homeschooled, in an 1100 square foot house, remember?

Favorite film adaptation of a novel?

A&E’s Pride and Prejudice

Most disappointing film adaptation?

I’d ditto Carrie and Barbara and say Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story. I don’t know that you can even call that an adaptation.

What would cause you to stop reading a book half-way through?

Absolute boringness or complete and utter heresy. I’ve done it with only a handful of books: Oz Garcia’s The Healthy, High Tech Body, Larry McMurtry’s Books: A Memoir, and Joel Osteen’s Become a Better You. Those are the only books I can remember stopping reading (without writing myself a note to pick them back up again.)

Do you like to keep your books organized?

Yes–but the organizational system varies. My fiction is ordered by author’s last name. My nonfiction is ordered by topic. My Biblical reference/Christian living is ordered partly by topic, partly by last name, and partly by what looks good on the shelf :-). My library books are ordered either by size or by due date, depending on how confident I feel that I’ll be able to get everything read before it’s due back!

I present a brief selection (since I probably ought not retype the entire book!)

“Winthrop’s text ['City upon a hill'] is frequently used as a source of reassurance about our exceptional national destiny, yet we should not be so quick to think that an ancient phrase of his can help us smooth over the rougher passages of our history, or that telling ourselves we are a special people entitles the country or any element within it to impose its will on others under the cloak of divine sanction.”

This reminds me of…well…Calvinism…actually. You see, Calvinists should be the most humble people in the world. After all, we affirm that we have been saved by absolutely no merit or choice of our own. Likewise, if America has indeed been called to be a city on a hill (although, of course, that passage refers to disciples of Christ, not to America)–but if America had been called to be a city on a hill, that should be an incredibly humbling thing. To be chosen by God to be on display? Surely not because we are great, but because He has some purpose to work through us. This ought drive us to our knees, to humility, that we might live for and fulfill His purposes–not that we should proudly consider him to have given His stamp of approval to our purposes.

“Williams was mostly interested in saving the church from the state, not the state from the church. The world was the world; the kingdom of God was something else entirely. ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,’ Jesus said, ‘and to God the things that are God’s.’ Williams called for a ‘hedge or wall of separation between the Garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.’ Note that Williams was not planting a hedge or building a wall to protect the state, but rather religion, believing that the ambitions and vices of men could pervert the church, turning faith into a means of temporal power.”

I think Williams and Greg Boyd would have gotten along together well :-)

“Even the preachers of the day saw the wisdom of keeping Williams’ garden and wilderness separate. The reasoning was rooted in both conviction and in pragmatism: church and state would be more powerful apart than they would have been if joined together.”

A very interesting statement to be sure. Are church and state more powerful apart than together?

“‘The magistrate is to govern the state, and Christ is to govern the church,’ said Reverend Samuel Stillman in a 1779 sermon to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. ‘The former will find business enough in the complex affairs of government to employ all his time and abilities. The latter is infinitely sufficient to manage his own kingdom without foreign aid.’ The religious knew, too, that to ally themselves with the powers of the temporal world might result in momentary gain, but only momentary.

I love that last line of Stillman’s: “The latter [Christ] is infinitely sufficient to manage his own kingdom without foreign aid.” Amen!

“‘[In] allying itself with a political power,’ Tocqueville said, ‘religion increases its power over some and loses the hope of reigning over all.’…He was not speaking theoretically, but from experience and history. ‘In Europe, Christianity has permitted itself to be intimately united with the powers of the earth,’ he said. ‘Today these powers are falling and it is almost buried under their debris.’”

Thinking of the fate of Christianity in the former Holy Roman Empire and both its Catholic and Protestant successors, I am inclined to think that this historical argument is a great one against the marriage of church and state.

“[Franklin] did not mean to imply, he said, that ‘our General convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new federal Constitution….Yet I must own that I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance…should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler.‘”

If God is indeed sovereign and sovereignly orders the world according to His will, then America is what it is because God willed it. But this is not reason for boasting, as though God places His stamp of approval on all that America does. Rather, it should be reason for trembling, since the same God who raises nations can also fell them in accordance with His will.

“If the first shall be last and the last first, then who are Christians to exert power over others by the sword or the purse or the polling place?”

An utterly fascinating question–with an incredibly complex answer (Our book club over The Myth of a Christian Nation spent ten or so weeks discussing that question–and I’m not sure we managed to come to any definitive conclusion.)