Thoughts on my fellow Memphis area pastor, Andy Savage

For the last several days I’ve been wrestling with what is appropriate for me, as a pastor in the Memphis, TN, area, to say publicly and openly about the situation involving Andy Savage, Highpoint Church, and Jules Woodson. After members in my congregation asked me about my perspective Wednesday night, I’ve come to the point where I feel compelled to offer some thoughts. 

For starters, let me deal with the log in my own eye: 20 years ago, I too was a young youth minister while finishing college, and I remember (sometimes with an accompanying facepalm) plenty of foolish mistakes and times when I sinned against those in my youth group or congregation. Throughout my adult life I’ve also faced my share of temptations toward sexual sin and other sins, and have failed in succumbing to those temptations more times than I wish were true. And, again thinking back to my late teens and early 20s, I remember times when, even as a Christian, I was inappropriately physical with women I was dating. 

Which is to say: I don’t believe that sexual sin is unforgivable, nor is the truth of sexual sin in a man’s past an automatic disqualification for ministry. And I do believe that every pastor fails his congregation, sometimes makes grievous mistakes, and sins against them. I’m certainly example #1 of all of these.

But the situation with Andy Savage is different.

I don’t know Andy personally, and frankly had never heard of him before very recently. I don’t know all of the circumstances or details of the history of what happened in Texas 20 years ago, nor do I know all of the details or circumstances about how things have unfolded in the last few weeks at Highpoint Church. I don’t profess to be an expert on sexual abuse or the abuse of power. (My brief account of events below can be supplemented easily by articles in the Kansas City Star, CBS News, and the New York Times, among others.) 

But from what I do know, I can tell you that the situation with Andy Savage is different. It’s not just a case of a pastor involved in an “unfortunate incident” that can be easily reconciled or dealt with “internally.” And it’s not just a case of past sin, even sexual sin. There’s a difference between sexual sin and predatory sin.

Andy Savage, taking advantage of his position and authority as a pastor in a church, drove a 17-year old girl under his pastoral care into the woods and sexually assaulted her. Afterward she spoke to another pastor on staff, Larry Cotton, about the assault; instead of pastoring her well and seeking justice and healing, he instructed her to keep silent about it and, by all appearances, he and the rest of the staff sought to cover it up. Andy Savage was gradually relieved of his responsibilities and allowed to leave to serve another church. Nothing to address this abuse and assault directly was ever done, as far as I can tell, until very recently. And for the most part what action has been taken is as frightening as it is disappointing. 

While Jules Woodson has had to deal with almost two decades of shame, nightmares, and PTSD from being sexually assaulted by her pastor, that pastor has been allowed to continue in a long career of ministry, eventually co-founding a megachurch, publishing several books, and hosting a radio show. And for most of those 20 years, Jules Woodson remained silent—until sharing her #MeToo testimony on a website in early January. She also posted a copy of an email she’d sent to Andy Savage in December.

Following this, Andy Savage first responded by Twitter and a statement on his blog (neither of which is available to the public any longer). I had a chance to read his statement before it was taken down, and was disappointed by the subtle gaslighting, deflection, and downplaying I read there. He referred the an “unfortunate sexual incident” that he “regretted”—with no mention of his failure to be truly accountable for his actions, or of the other pastor’s neglect to provide protection and support of Savage’s victim.

For reasons I don’t know (but I speculate that it was because it became clear to the leadership of Highpoint Church felt that the blog statement was not going to make it all go away), Andy Savage presented an “admission” to his congregation this past Sunday after a lengthy, qualifying introduction by co-pastor Chris Conlee (it was live-streamed; click here to see the “testimony” on YouTube). In it, he did not recount anything about his assault of a teenager, but claimed that “in agreement with church staff, I took every step to respond in a biblical way” and that he “accepted full responsibility for [his] actions.” He asserted that “this incident was dealt with in Texas 20 years ago” and claimed that he believed everything had been done that was needed. When he was done with his statement, the congregation rose for a standing ovation, and Chris Conlee spoke further about how grateful he and Andy were for the support of the congregation, then he prayed for Andy, the Savage family, and for Jules Woodson.

To be fair, Andy Savage’s statement on the video seems utterly sincere and he apparently demonstrates what can only described as remorse. And, giving all benefit of doubt to Savage, it may indeed be that he did everything that he was counseled to do by his fellow staff and the pastors he served under—which casts troubling light back on Larry Cotton and the others on staff, at very least. On the other hand, according to my fellow pastor Mike Sloan, outward sincerity is something that abusers can summon at will—and given the facts that Andy Savage has at various times changed his story, hidden his Twitter feed from public viewing, taken down his initial blog post, rationalized his actions and response, and blamed Jules Woodson for being complicit, this may be exactly what he is doing.

Even if he is utterly sincere and remorseful, the situation is still troubling. So what is so troubling about this? What makes this situation different?

First, Jules Woodson should have been supported, protected, loved, and encouraged by her church family—especially by the pastoral staff. She should never, ever have been made to feel that she was at fault or complicit in any way; they should have believed her, disavowed any shame on her part, and offered counseling and pastoral care. The way that she has been dealt with, then and now, is generally shameful and embarrassing for the church.

Second, let’s acknowledge plainly that, whatever happened in the moment or in the wake of Andy Savage’s sexual assault of Jules Woodson, no true justice has been sought for this. Final justice, of course, belongs to the Lord—and yet Christians are also commanded to seek justice in the world as faithful living in the Kingdom. Jules Woodson is the victim of assault, and deserved to have justice pursued on her behalf instead of what she received.

Third, this was not simply “sexual sin”—which, as a pastor, would have been similarly troubling and threatening to his ministry—but was a clear case of abuse of power and assault. In some states there are laws that categorize any sexual contact between a pastor and someone under his care as sexual assault, regardless of age or consent, because of the recognition that pastors are people in positions of authority. Add in the fact that she was still 17 and under her parents’ care and authority, and (regardless of what Texas law may stipulate about ages of consent) it was also a clear breach of ethical boundaries. Nothing about this “sexual incident” was okay or “normal” or anything like that.

Further, it raises the honest question: “Who else?” Andy Savage claims there has never been another incident like this one in his life. Let’s hope and pray that is true. But there are markers, as Mike Sloan pointed out to me, of the traits of an abuser. If that’s the case, there may be other victims as well who, like Jules Woodson, have been shamed and guilted into lonely silence. And if that is the case, it’s fair to say that those victims too have been robbed of pastoral care, mercy, and justice.

Also, Andy Savage, Larry Cotton, and the rest of their staff sinned and erred by not dealing with the situation publicly, openly, and decisively. He shouldn’t have been allowed to resign, but should have been fired. It should have been announced to the congregation that he was fired for sexual impropriety with a member of the youth group for whom he was given care. And he should have been placed under the public discipline of the church, and not simply allowed to “move home” to avoid continuing to deal with it.

Next, it appears that the leadership of both churches (though Highpoint perhaps less so) are caught up in a pattern of self-protection, more concerned about avoiding controversy than about addressing sin in a biblical way. This is evident, among other things, in casting Andy Savage as a “victim” in this whole situation alongside the true victim he assaulted. I can appreciate Chris Conlee’s attempts to be careful with how he worded things and also to speak of the need for support and healing for Jules Woodson, there were many statements that he made which made me feel like he was downplaying the reality of things and trying to separate what Andy Savage did from the fallout that it wreaked in Jules Woodson’s life. If anything (and again, giving as much benefit of doubt as possible), it almost seems like Andy Savage realizes that, then and now, there are far more consequences to his sin against her than anyone else will acknowledge—or possibly even than anyone else will allow him face. Once more I’ll reiterate that I don’t know the circumstances intimately, but I could totally believe a situation where, as a twenty-something, he wasn’t permitted to speak as freely or accept the consequences as fully as maybe even he himself felt was right.

Finally, the response of Highpoint Church as a congregation is disturbing. I’ve been in congregations where one person starts clapping and everyone else, not knowing what’s appropriate or not, just follows along. And I certainly recognize that having one of your pastors stand up and make a statement (however devoid of details) confessing to serious sin in the past would make for an awkward moment. But whatever the right response to this situation is, a standing ovation isn’t it. I know someone would say, “They weren’t applauding sin; they were applauding God’s grace which is big enough for any sin.” Still, it doesn’t feel right to me.

Where do we go from here? I’ll simply speak pastorally in a few directions.

To Jules Woodson: I am so, so sorry that you have faced all that you have. I’m sorry that someone you trusted and relied upon took advantage of that and abusively assaulted you sexually. And I’m sorry that others whom you trusted afterward betrayed you the way they did. You’ve never received the justice that your assault deserved, or the support and love that your church congregation had pledged to you. You’ve had to face two decades of pain, suffering, shame, loneliness, and false guilt because of the abuse of power and sexual violence of a pastor. My heart aches for you, and I pray that somehow you will find the true peace that Christ offers to sufferers.

To Andy Savage: I recognize that you saw the grievous nature of your sin almost immediately and owned that before Jules, and I acknowledge the remorse that I heard in your words as you spoke to Highpoint Church recently. I pray that those were truly sincere and not merely an abuser’s façade. I acknowledge that you simply may not have known what to do 20 years ago, and thus may have relied too heavily upon the counsel and guidance of men you trusted and who failed you. But your conscience, then and now, were and are telling you what was right, and you have followed the wrong path instead of heeding it. A video live-stream with a brief apology is not sufficient for the suffering your sin brought to another’s life. The apparent efforts made by you and others to minimize and cover up this sequence of sins appears manipulative, not repentant. As a fellow pastor and your brother in Christ, I would urge you to step aside from your leadership in the church, seek counseling and come to real terms with what havoc you brought into Jules Woodson’s life, and open yourself up to hearing from her directly about the pain you caused, admitting it and seeking true forgiveness.

To the leadership of the congregations involved: I appreciate that Larry Cotton has been put on leave of his current congregation in light of how he failed to act appropriately years ago. I urge Highpoint Church to take this matter at least as seriously, and not present abuse and assault as something applaudable or as an opportunity for an object lesson. Don’t downplay the severity of your pastor’s sins, or cast him as a victim in this scenario. Be willing to speak boldly and frankly about sin, even if it risks bringing controversy or makes your congregants ill-at-ease. Please, don’t protect or shelter abusers and give them the cover of the leadership dealing with matters “internally”—handle them with appropriate transparency and in accordance with the law and with the ethics that Scripture demands of treating those who are vulnerable and victimized with dignity, respect, and justice. Be bold and faithful enough to practice biblical discipline even (especially!) when it comes to the leadership of the church. 

To believers in the Memphis area and elsewhere: please, demand of your church that they treat sexual abuse and child victimization as seriously as they possibly can. Ask them if they have child protection policies in place, and if they do not then ask why. If they are dismissive or flippant about the issue, then it is likely time to find a new church. And if you need to talk through this topic and don’t feel you have someone to talk to, feel free to reach out to me—if I don’t know the answers, I can put you in touch with someone who will.

Resources that are worth your time:

GRACE (God’s Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) ministry

FaithfulProtection.org—a turn-key guide to child protection policies and practices for the local church

Pep Rallies and Denominational Divides

…Or, why I don’t fit into “categories” (and I don’t think you do either)

If you’re into the “inside baseball” of denominational polity—and perhaps especially within the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)—then the last couple of days have probably been an occasion for pondering and assessment. A couple of days ago, the latest issue of byFaith magazine (the PCA’s denominational publication) came in the mail, and yesterday byFaith’s website (byfaithonline.com) posted an article from it: “The State of the PCA” by Dr. Bryan Chapell. On the heels of that, today saw the publication of a response on the Reformation21 website: “Dear Bryan: Replying to ‘The State of the PCA’" by Dr. Rick Phillips.

Both articles are written by respected and influential men in the PCA. Dr. Chapell is the President Emeritus of the PCA’s Covenant Theological Seminary, a seasoned pastor, the author of a number of books, and the current (and soon-to-be outgoing) moderator of the denomination. Dr. Phillips is a leader and board member of a number of familiar ministries (the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, The Gospel Coalition) as well as Westminster Theological Seminary, and is also a seasoned pastor and published author. While I don’t know Dr. Phillips personally, I do happen to have some background with Dr. Chapell—he was my professor at seminary, and also offered personal counsel to me on more than one occasion. What I know to be true of Dr. Chapell is, I am certain, also true of Dr. Phillips: these are men who deeply love Christ and his church, are committed to the advance of the gospel, and long for greater unity within the PCA.

Good Intentions

So I take for granted the fact that both articles have as their intent the goals of giving clarity to what has sown division among our denomination, and also identifying hoped-for paths toward overcoming that division. What I wonder, however, is whether the approach that these articles employ is useful to reach those goals—or are they actually counterproductive?

Both Dr. Chapell and Dr. Phillips do a fine job—though at different points—of highlighting areas where division rests. As I read each piece, I found things to affirm and agree with, recognizing wisdom in how they exposed particular problems in the PCA. It’s probably fair to say that, if you want to get an accurate picture of how to divide up the various members of the PCA according to categories, you should read both of these articles and generate something of a synthesis.

My question is: why do you want to divide us up that way?

Pep Rallies

I went to Hammond School, a small private school, from first to twelfth grade. It happened that this school had a pretty strong athletic program (regularly winning state championships in football, basketball, baseball, and soccer), and during my time there that was a point of great pride and unity among the student body. (That athletic tradition still continues, and is still a minor source of pride: “our” football team has gone to the state championship for the last eight years straight, winning six of those; both the boys’ and girls’ basketball teams competed in the state finals this year, and the boys’ team won it.)

Pep rallies at Hammond were an interesting experience. They were raucous, energetic events—we knew that this was one of the things that brought us together the most. Yet, there would inevitably be a point where the emcee would introduce some sense of intra-school competition, usually in the form of, “Which class can cheer [read: yell] the loudest?”

Was it the lowly freshmen? The coming-into-their own sophomores? The restless juniors? The confident seniors? Maybe even the rowdy eighth graders or the barely-adolescent seventh graders?

The thing is: this was a very small school. My graduating class had 34 members (so, yes, I finished in the top 30 of my graduating class). The whole K-12 student body was smaller than my wife’s single class. I had good friends who were four and five grade-levels above me, and by the time I graduated I knew most of those students below me down to the seventh grade. I still keep in touch with a number of fellow Hammond students (mostly via Facebook); recent sudden deaths of alums, even though not a part of my own class, stung as though they had been in my year.

Because the student body was so small, almost every school activity included students spanning four and five grade levels: school plays were for seniors and seventh graders alike; the chorus had eighth grade students alongside juniors. Varsity sports might celebrate a senior with several years’ experience behind him, while also starting a ninth grader (or sometimes even younger). There was much, much more unity among the student body than there was division, at least compared to most other schools. 

Though I didn’t realize it as much at the time, in retrospect it is clear that the purpose of grade levels like sophomore, junior, and senior at Hammond was more a function of academic progress than much else. Which is why the dynamic at pep rallies always seemed a bit contradictory and out of place. These were real categories, to be sure, and they mattered—but they were so far from embodying the real identities of the students themselves that appealing to them rang false.

They Don’t Fit

That’s how I feel about the imposed categories by Drs. Chapell and Phillips as well. I’m sure that there are pastors, ruling elders, and perhaps even whole congregations that line up tightly and tidily into the categories laid out in those two articles—just as I am confident that some of my Hammond classmates felt a much closer identification with their class-year than I did. But I don’t know many (if any).

Breaking it down a bit, with myself as an example:

• Dr. Chapell offered a point of division the PCA by broad age categories—which Dr. Phillips questioned, and rightly so. While generational experiences always matter in terms of how we understand our world, my own experience has consistently been that age matters only so much. Meanwhile, I’ve always found great affinity with older ministers and been able to work alongside them easily. Which age demographic do I fit better with, Dr. Chapell?
• I agree with Dr. Phillips’ assessment of the reasons and need to embrace the “cultural isolation” that Christians are increasingly facing; yet I also agree with Dr. Chapell’s claim (and hope) that there is still a place for “winning a hearing for a credible faith” as a means of influencing, if not the collective culture, then the individual culture-makers that we each encounter. And I’m suspicious of both takes, insofar as they seem to hold cultural change and impact as a metric for the faithfulness of ministry. So which “camp” am I a part of when it comes to culture, Dr. Phillips?
• It seems that an underlying difference that neither is willing to directly call out is the fundamental, 15-year-old debate (still raging behind the scenes) over “good faith” vs. “full” or “strict” subscription to our theological standards. This is the meta-issue beneath so much of what is discussed in these articles: some members of the PCA believe we opened the door to potential theological liberalism (or “progressivism”), while others believe that the best way forward is down the path we have taken. I’ve blogged about this before and obviously I come down on the side of being in favor of “good faith” subscription; nevertheless, almost all of my own exceptions are matters of “semantic” difference and not theological ones, and would probably pass the smell test for a “full subscription” examination. Still, the “full subscription” folks wouldn’t have me, because I’m open to the idea of “good faith” subscription in general. 
• Meanwhile, both Dr. Chapell and Dr. Phillips use terms like “progressive” and “confessionalist” (or “traditionalist” as Dr. Chapell has it)—which strike me as false dichotomies. The values attributed to each are not mutually exclusive, and every value deserves a place of emphasis in proper context. Are they simply saying that some of us err in misplacing emphasis at times? We all do that. All of these are highly-charged terms that entrench more than they helpfully qualify. 

To be fair, it is acknowledged (by Dr. Chapell directly, and I assume Dr. Phillips would agree) that these are not universal categories, but that they are common ones. I guess I would openly challenge that premise, recognizing that if that premise fails then the whole argument collapses.

How Does This Help?

One thing they both agree on is that there is a disconcerting degree of factioning in the PCA, and that we are dependent on particular factors (especially external ones) to overcome the divisions marked by these factions. This is not, in fact, the first time that we’ve been told this. At least three times in the past decade I can recall articles or presentations that sought to give a “state of the PCA” description and that essentially boiled us down to how we are divided.

What I keep asking myself is, “How does saying this over and over help the situation?"

I’m not sure that it helps at all. I think it might be hurting things a bit.

A few weeks ago, a few friends on Facebook linked to an article wherein an activist for homosexual civil rights was cited as saying that the ultimate goal of seeking the legalization of “gay marriage” was to obliterate the institution of marriage entirely. These Facebook friends and others were doing the digital equivalent of jumping up and down while pointing and angrily crying out, “You see? I knew it! They all want to destroy marriage!"

On one of those posts, though, a mutual acquaintance who happens to be homosexual commented, “That may be her goal, but it’s not everyone’s goal."

This is an important point that we shouldn’t miss: just because one person avows something, it does not necessarily make them a representative of all the rest of their “category”—even if they say that it does. Even if they are a recognized voice that often speaks for that category. The truth is that people are much more complex than that.

So it is in the PCA too: we hear or read something by someone in another “camp” and we infer conclusions about the whole camp through it. When we do that, our factions become more deeply divided and entrenched in our opposition. We turn against each other more readily and with greater perceived right to do so.

What if that which we are dependent upon to overcome divisions are not external factors but internal ones? What if the way through this as a denomination is to quit focusing so much on what divides?

A Team Sport

The kind of article that Drs. Chapell and Phillips have penned often set the tone for General Assembly—poorly. We read them, then we go in watching for the factions and picking sides. I think that’s a mistake.

In the end, General Assembly should be much like a pep rally (yes, I’m oversimplifying). It’s a chance to hear the voices from the different classes calling out their various cheers, and recognizing where we are different in good-natured ways that nevertheless are overcome by the ultimate unity behind the true goal: our team is in play.

When a team takes the field, every player has a different role. The goalie doesn’t often take shots on the opposing goal; the quarterback doesn’t usually make interceptions; the pitcher doesn’t field fly balls at the fence. They need each other to accomplish the purposes they have been given as a team—together.

Dr. Chapell closed his article saying that he hoped, "the great battle will lead to new levels of graciousness to each other and dependence upon the grace of our Savior.” Dr. Phillips agreed with that hope, but cautioned that his fear is that "the very thing which divides us is our approach to this common enemy, so that it is perhaps more likely that we will pull apart.” But I Corinthians 12:12–27 suggests that both of these statements are missing something: we’re not only dependent upon the grace of our Savior to extend that kind of grace to each other; we are, by the grace of our Savior, also dependent upon each other.

If you follow my analogy above, you’ll see where I’m going with this. Dr. Chapell (who, Dr. Phillips suggested, leans slightly to the “progressive” side) needs Dr. Phillips’ “confessionalist” approach to round out the team. Dr. Phillips needs Dr. Chapell, too. I need my confessionalist friends to check my progressive tendencies, and I need my progressive friends to motivate them. I need my progressive friends to balance out my confessionalism, and my confessional friends to encourage them.

In spite of my wondering about the value of either article, I agree with Dr. Phillips’ final statement as an urging toward this team spirit: “It is essential that we love one another and seek venues in which our personal and pastoral understanding may be increased.” May it be so.

Todd Gurley is a paid athlete

The University of Georgia suspended their star player this week: Todd Gurley, who had been considered a Heisman Trophy candidate at one point, was suspended indefinitely, which means he likely will never play college football again.

What did Todd Gurley do? Was he caught robbing a local store? Did he get drunk and drive under the influence of alcohol? Was he accused of sexual assault? No, those kinds of offenses won’t get you an indefinite suspension in college football—at least, not one mandated by the NCAA.

No, Gurley apparently autographed 80 different items, in exchange for $400. Now, apart from the offense that comes from valuing a star player’s autograph at only $5—because let’s face it, this guy will likely go on to play NFL and has all the makings of a star—why is that so bad?

Because, according to the NCAA, college athletes are strictly defined as “amateurs” and cannot profit from their athletic careers. Gurley’s $5 signature violates this definition in a manner that makes the NCAA indignant like little else will.

There is another side of the debate that thinks the NCAA can shove it, that college athletes—especially football players—should be paid a cash salary for all of the income that they generate for their schools, and let’s forget about this façade of “amateur” status. I’m not exactly there, but I am sympathetic to the argument that declaring them “amateurs” is, indeed, a façade.

Why? Because most college football players receive scholarships. So do most basketball players. And baseball, soccer, and other sports have their share of scholarships as well. And scholarships are a form of payment.

The Bleacher Report, another of the growing number of sports news websites, put together a nice summary a couple of years ago entitled, “So What’s a College Football Scholarship Worth Anyway?” In summary terms, here’s what they declared it to be worth (in 2011 dollars):

• Non-resident college tuition: $29,671
• Room and board: $9,067
• Books/school supplies: $1,009
• Personal/misc. expenses: $1,939
• Total: $41,686
• Non-quantifiable benefits: tutoring; special study facilities; medical, disability, and catastrophic injury insurance; possible financial help for the students and/or their families (via the NCAA Student Assistance Fund); equipment, uniforms, athletic equipment; access to trainers, coaches, and facilities for health and athletic conditioning.

And those are not to mention the benefits that being a high-profile athlete inevitably has for the player’s long-term career. Look at how athletes like John Elway, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O’Neal, and Peyton Manning have parlayed their images into commercial success. These advantages are not available to just any college student.

By comparison: I got out of college with relatively few student loans (only about $15K), mostly because I went to a pretty affordable state school and my mother was generous with her support. Still, I left college with $15K in student debt, and I was in my 30s and on the THIRD job in my chosen profession (and, at the time, had also completed graduate school, thereby incurring some further debt) before my annual salary exceeded the cash value The Bleacher Report claims a college freshman will receive if he is a full-ride scholarship football player.

I was very active in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in college, and I had a number of friends who were scholarship athletes (including a number of football players). I’ve seen the differences in the dorms, the cafeteria food, the study areas. I knew then, and remember well, how much these students were taken care of by our university. I don’t begrudge them that; they worked hard to earn their scholarships, and I was never an athlete in any sport at a level required to earn one myself. But don’t think for a second that their college experience was pretty much the same as mine.

Let me repeat: These are not advantages available to just any college student.

The only reason why they are available to the students who receive them is this: those students have signed a contract, agreeing to play football for the college in exchange for all of these benefits. (Often these contract signings are accompanied by press conferences. Covering 18-year-old kids. Whose claim to the media attention is that they play a game well.) Does that not strike you as surprisingly corporate, for something that is supposedly an “amateur” activity?

There is no conclusion that we can reach other than this: college football players who are scholarshipped are paid athletes. They are already professionals. They should be treated like professionals. They do not need to be paid additional salaries; they are being well-paid already, and if they perform well in these “entry-level” positions they will have opportunities for huge advancement. Plus they are being given the privilege of a college education, on top of all of the rest—which, for as much as we take it for granted in the U.S., is nothing to be glib about.

Todd Gurley should not have been suspended. He should have been counseled that his signature is probably worth more than $5.

Come on, NCAA: if you really want to crack down on something important, how about addressing the rape culture that is way too common in college athletics? How about focusing on other truly dangerous activities, like assault, drunkenness, and drug use? 

Or is it time to finally stop taking the NCAA seriously as an organization that is “dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes”?

Review of The Hunger Games trilogy

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


This review is for all three of the books in the series.

My review is a complex one, because the books themselves are complex and the trilogy is a web of complexity. I read these for several reasons, not least because Marcie had read them and wanted to talk about them. One friend said she had a “book hangover” for several days after reading them— that’s a good way to describe the emotional oppressiveness that lingers for a while after you’ve read them. And yet, there’s also something welcome about the story told in these books, and I did enjoy them.

There’s a lot to say here, and it’s best to divide out the topics into pieces.

Writing
Taken by itself, the writing quality of these books is definitely above average. It’s engaging, well-paced, and effective for story-telling. There’s little to no cliché or tired convention, and there’s an honesty to them that is endearing—which is odd considering the subject matter.

The author has a great love for plot twists, and there are perhaps one or two more than I would have preferred. This is probably my only complaint about the writing.

If I were rating this book based on the writing alone, I would probably give it four stars, or perhaps 4.5 (if GoodReads would allow half stars!).

Story
So, the story is more than a little dark. But let’s face it: dystopian tales are, by nature, dark, so that’s to be expected, right? As dark, dystopian stories go, this one is pretty good.

I’m no expert on the history of ancient Rome, but I believe that the Hunger Games trilogy offers a loose, future re-telling of the downfall of the Roman empire. Or at least, it has a number of echoes of that era and theme. This makes for an interesting twist, and also tones down the darkness a bit (because if the story was only describing future possibilities, it would be quite bleak indeed).

The underlying relationships in the story help a lot. There’s something of a love triangle, which has the potential to turn hokey (but doesn’t). This keeps the story from dragging at some points, provides a welcome distraction from the darkness of the main story (and at times actually seems to be the real main story), and offers motivation for some of the more important plot lines.

There’s a plausibility to this story that is striking, which is one of the real strengths of both the writing and the story-telling abilities of the author. I think this is an aspect of the books that has struck a strong chord with many readers, as is implied by analysis such as Slate’s“The Economics of the Hunger Games” and other similar articles.

As with the writing, if I were rating the book on the basis of the story, from a strictly abstract perspective I would give it four stars.

Problems
So why only three stars, if the writing and the story merit at least four? Because of two fundamental problems which present the more complicating factors.

First off is the ethical/moral structure presented in the book. I’ve read some reviews that complain that the writer presents an ethical worldview that is too flimsy; in Douglas Wilson’s review, for example, he points to the very “situational ethics” quality of the Hunger Games trilogy, and demonstrates how these kinds of situations don’t square with a biblical Christian ethics. He makes strong points, but I don’t fully agree with his assessment.

The problem with Wilson’s review is that he seems to assume that it is/was Suzanne Collins’s job to offer an ethical perspective that is biblical, or at least consistent with biblical morality and nobility. Why would this be a reasonable assumption? As far as I know, Collins doesn’t claim to be a Christian— and even if she does, I’ve never heard or read any claim that the books themselves are written as “Christian fiction”. Sure, it’s possible to have mainstream fiction that is consistent with biblical values, but just because some fiction is biblically consistent doesn’t mean that all fiction must be. (This is the kind of logic problem I would expect Wilson to suss out pretty easily.)

Still, I’m not indifferent to Wilson’s concerns, the ethical conundra presented in The Hunger Games are complex enough to be stomach-churning at times, which leads me to tend to rate it lower. I would have a hard time recommending it to younger, less-discerning readers.

Which leads me to my second problem area: these books (and the movie(s) now coming out based on them) have been presented as “Young Adult Fiction”— which is hogwash. They’re published by Scholastic, which explains (to an extent) why they are being marketed to such a young audience. But it’s very difficult to see how these are appropriate for young readers.

So much of the content in these books is disturbing enough to create multiple problems for younger readers. The ethical ambiguities mentioned above are one aspect. Another is how they would inevitably leave some (like my son) with recurring fears and nightmares. Generally, too, I imagine that they would have to create some doubt or even cynicism about the future, in terms of ecological concerns (since the setting of the world described is in a changed and reduced version of North America, affected drastically by climate change), governmental concerns, military/warfare concerns, and so on.

It’s not to say that some of these concerns are completely illegitimate, nor are they matters that younger audiences shouldn’t begin to learn about. Rather, I doubt seriously whether dystopian fiction is the venue by which we should teach them.

I think the thing that troubles me the most about The Hunger Games is that they are presented as Young Adult Fiction— indeed, that they (and any of the now garden-variety vampire stories) are increasingly seen as the new archetype of Young Adult Fiction.

For the ethics complexity, I would rate the book at two stars; the “Young Adult Fiction” categorization, though, ranks at one star for me. Overall, then, my review balances out at three stars.


View all my reviews

Cheesy lawyer ads

Do you get as tired of seeing these guys on TV hawking their “law services” to any of us who might remotely fall into an action class? This modern-day version of ambulance chasing gets under my skin. Consider this an open response to these hucksters.

First of all: why would I hire you instead of calling someone I actually know (who is at least remotely connected to the field of law) and asking for a referral? If your answer is, “because you know my face from TV” then you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid too long.

Second: how did you decide that this-- marketing yourself as someone who takes advantage of others’ difficulties-- was a good career for you? Are you aware that you come across as slimy and opportunist, and most people (if they don’t ignore you) consider you and the services you offer to be about two notches lower than the seedy used car salesman stereotype? Surely someone has cared enough to tell you this before, but if not, I’m Simon Cowell enough to do so now.

Finally: you should be aware that I (and, hopefully, others like me) will urge anyone I know NOT to employ your services. As a Pastor, I’m convicted that the biblical passages that urge Christians not to take one another to court applies today; further, I believe that when legal action is necessary, it should be as uncontentious as possible. My instincts tell me that your approach would be at the far-opposite end of the spectrum, and you would go for as much contention as you could muster. I generally believe that our culture is far too letigious, and I think the positions and attitudes that you represent have greatly contributed to that.

In closing, I offer the excellent commentary from my man Remy, who astutely points out everything that is wrong with your commercials. Watch and learn:

Not taking ourselves too seriously

At the recommendation of my St. Louis friend Steve Hughes, I started watching Last Comic Standing on NBC this summer. Funny stuff-- I’ve always enjoyed stand-up comedy, and this is a fun reality show.

On the first show, a pair came on that really hit on something good. They present themselves as a “Christian folk duo with a message” and (after looking them up on the web) I think they really are Christians who are also comedians and want to poke fun at the sub-culture that has, sadly, emerged as perhaps representative of Christianity in our world. Here’s their first clip:

So, I entered a drawing...

There's a contest (or drawing... is there a difference?) that I entered on another blog. The idea is this: this other blogger is giving away 20 sets of 18 CDs, apparently provided to her by WOW-- which is a group that produces compilation CDs of Christian music. (HT: Megan)

Who knows if I'll win? But if I do, it'll be an interesting experiment. I haven't listened to very much "Christian" music for years. The only musicians who market themselves as "Christian music" that I've bought in the last decade are: Wes King, Andrew Peterson, Bob Bennett, Michael Card, and Bebo Norman.

I'm sure there's some decent stuff out there, but I can't bring myself to listen to the local Christian music radio station to find it-- and there wasn't a Christian music radio station in St. Louis, even if I had wanted to. (I know-- hard to believe, isn't it?) So this is an opportunity for me to be re-introduced to what's worth listening to.

Here's an interesting twist: of the 17 artists listed in the give-away, five of them are names that I have bought before (over a decade ago): Michael W. Smith, Steven Curtis Chapman, Newsboys, Third Day, and Point of Grace. They either have aged well, or the Christian music being offered today sounds surprisingly like early 90s pop. You decide...

Books for May 2008

The Work of the Pastor by William Still (re-read). This brief volume is a help, challenge, and rebuke for all of us. Still, who pastored a single flock in Scotland for 51 years, here presents the sum of the pastor's duties, distilling it down to the essence of shepherding and feeding the lambs on the Word of God. For such a short book, there is much to be found here, and it is one of those books I believe should make its way into the rotation of every pastor. (10)

Wiring a House by Rex Cauldwell. Yes, I actually read this book cover-to-cover. And, in fact, I thought it was a great read. When I was in seminary, a friend who was a former electrician taught me how to wire lights and outlets; now, as I face the work of our attic renovation, I realized that I had a bit more wiring to do than simply a light socket here and there. This book answered every question I had remaining, and gave me the knowledge and confidence to move ahead with the electrical part of the job without fear (or at least without more fear than is a healthy amount when working with electricity). This writer is a seasoned Master Electrician, and he does a great job of telling the industry secrets while introducing concept after concept in a very readable and didactic manner. He also goes the extra mile with "Above Code" comments in every chapter, telling you where the code standards aren't quite enough for one reason or another. A great book, and a must-read for me in my current status as part-time contractor! (9)

With Reverence and Awe by D.G. Hart and John R. Muether. This book, subtitled, "Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship," was a difficult read for me. I agreed with 90% of the content, and found it engaging in that manner; however, I agreed with about 30% of the tone-- how they brought about communicating their ideas. Like most forms of communication, tone matters so much when conveying sometimes difficult and/or confronting content. Even though they claim not to do this (of course they would!), there was also a little edge of "if you're not worshiping like us, then you're not worshiping the way God wants you to" in the book; that sort of arrogance gets under my skin quickly, even in small doses. There is some good content in this book, and they do a fair job of driving the discussion toward the Scriptures-- it might be worth reading just as an introduction to relevant biblical texts for thinking about worship (though other books do a better job at that). (5)

Emotionally Healthy Spirituality by Peter Scazzero (re-read). I first read this book a few years ago, but decided that it might be, well, healthy to read it again. It was just as good. Scazzero deals with a difficult subject honestly, with clarity, and with practicality. He discusses what emotional health is (on a primarily individual level), and how a church might (or any relational group) might embody good emotional health. While there are some shortcomings in the book, and while I want for more help and information on some of the points (another post on this is coming), I'd like to think that every church CAN aspire to what Scazzero sets forth as something like an ideal. (8+)

Ruling Elder by Leonard Van Horn. Here's a (very) brief little booklet that is great for orienting Elder candidates to the office. It is quite basic, offering a short examination of three questions: Are you called to be an Elder? What is your view of the church? Are you qualified to be an Elder? Van Horn works through each competently. By no means is this little book sufficient for all officer training needs! But I plan to use it as a give-away to all nominees (in complement to the training they are already receiving) to help guide them in considering their nomination. (8)

Framing Floors, Walls, and Ceilings by the editors of Fine Homebuilding. You can tell by the fact that I read two books on home remodeling-type subjects that I'm in the midst of a big project at the house! Unfortunately, this one wasn't nearly as good as the one above. It looks to be essentially a compilation of articles by these editors, all of which are moderately helpful. But because this one was cobbled together-- rather than written step-by-step with comprehensive planning involved, like Wiring a House was-- there are big holes of information. Since I've done some basic building and remodeling before, I was mostly able to follow along; someone with no experience in this area would easily get lost. I'll still use this for reference at times, but it's likely that I'll look for another (better) book on the subject to round out my knowledge-base. (4)

Turning the race into a farce

If the Democratic National Committee (DNC) decides to seat some or all of the delegates from Florida and Michigan, it will simultaneously unite the party and turn itself into a political farce.

If you haven't been following along, here's the backstory: in 2006, the DNC voted to limit the states the could hold primaries or caucuses before February 5^th to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. However, in 2007 both Florida and Michigan decided to hold their primaries earlier than they historically had-- and before February 5^th-- in order to increase their influence in the primary elections. Both were warned by the DNC that they must change the dates, and both refused; consequently, both were informed by the DNC that their primaries would not be nullified, as they were then stripped of their delegates. (Click here and here for more on these.)

Both states went ahead and held their primaries, in a pouty insistence that the DNC didn't have a right to its action (which it does). These primaries, however, were not given much attention in the campaigns; John Edwards and Barack Obama did not even register to be on the ballot in Michigan, for example, and almost none of the candidates spent a significant amount of time campaigning in either state-- though Hilary gave both states more attention than her counterparts, perhaps thinking it would be good ground-breaking for the general election in the fall. In one way or another, all of the candidates spoke out in support of the DNC's decision and right to make such a decision. Hilary Clinton was pronounced the winner in both states, although she only won 56% of the vote in Michigan (with a full 40% falling into a nebulous "undecided/uncommitted" category) and 50% or less in Florida. (Of course, in a primary race then those are pretty strong percentages-- but considering that neither of her stronger rivals even gave an effort, it's strikes me as a bit low).

Within a few weeks after these rogue primaries, however, it had become clear to Hilary Clinton that she wasn't the presumptive nominee that she thought herself to be. Suddenly, she changed her tune about the primaries in both Florida and Michigan, claiming that it would be wrong to deny them their voice in the election and that their delegates should be seated after all. That's convenient, since those delegates would be mainly in support of her campaign, which has continued to wash against the rocks over the ensuing months.

But frankly, it would be wrong to seat those delegates. For one thing, both states made decisions that were contrary to the rules laid out by the DNC, and they were both given an opportunity to bring themselves within conformity to those rules. So seating delegates from Florida and Michigan would send a clear message: "our rules don't count if you complain loudly enough." Or even worse: "our rules don't count if the Clintons benefit from them not counting."

Moreover, to seat those delegates would be unfair. Neither Obama or Edwards-- arguably the only other serious contenders at that point-- invested much effort or finances into campaigning there. And for good reason: they had been told that these so-called primaries would not count. They were abiding by the rules of the elections set forth by the DNC, and therefore had no reason to believe that it would ever become an issue. For the life of me I can't understand why Obama isn't shouting this from the rooftops-- unless he's too afraid that it would hurt his electability in those states this fall, which would be a sad reason to hold back.

It reminds me of a parenting philosophy one of my seminary professors espoused: he said, "in our household [a family of five] we make decisions democratically. Everyone gets a vote. But my vote counts six." That works in parenting, but not for national politics.

All of this comes together to make the DNC and the Clintons look ridiculous. Did the DNC set out to look like it was willing to let Bill and Hilary call the shots on this one? Did Barack Obama intend to appear to roll over and ignore a clear-cut situation? Did Hilary Clinton want to offer us one more example of her double-speak? Probably "no" on all counts. Yet, if things play out like it seems they will, all of these will come to pass.

Two ironies have already come to pass: for one thing, both states would have had all the influence they could have wished had they kept their primaries when they usually had them (early March for Florida; February 5 for Michigan). This year's Democratic primary has drawn out so long that almost every state has felt like they have a large part in the process. All of the hassle and mess about Florida and Michigan was for naught.

For another irony, it turns out that Obama will end up getting a significant number of the delegates even if they ARE seated. All schemes and closed-door agreements aside, Obama scored better than 30% of the votes in both "primaries" without even campaigning there-- including what had to be write-ins in Michigan, where he wasn't even on the ballot. So for all of Hilary's whining about the need to seat these delegates, she still won't have enough delegates to win the nomination, even if they decide to grant them all a place at the table.

This whole situation is a mess; the DNC doesn't need to make it worse by opening the door to making the whole party process even more of a joke.

What's on TV?

A few weeks ago, a blog I read had a post about turning off the TV. The gist of the post was highlighting the fact that Americans watch too much TV (an average of four hours a day, says this blog) and how watching less reclaims that time for other things (like, in this case, de-cluttering your home). Many commenters chimed in with vehement agreement, claiming that TV was "a waste of time" and that there is nothing really worth watching.

While I agree that there is a problem of watching too much TV-- and that there are often better ways to spend time-- I also agree with one commenter who boldly spoke up in defense of television. His argument was that the claim, "There's nothing good on TV" is typical of those who, ironically, don't watch TV (and if you didn't catch the irony: if they don't watch TV, then they won't really know whether there's anything good on, will they?).

His point is a good one: some have argued that we're in something of a "golden age" of television. Cable channels (including premium channels like HBO and Showtime) have invested heavily for the last 10 years or so to gain a place in the primetime and serial TV market. Network TV-- long the dominant play-callers of the industry-- is fighting to maintain even a share of the viewers they once had, who are flying out the door to the cable and premium channels and their programming. This level of competition fell during a fortuitous point (for viewers, at least) in the timeline for the Internet: it was established enough to be a buzz-creator and discussion venue about new shows, but immature enough to not offer a competitive element of its own. So folks could talk about what they liked-- and savvy producers could learn from those discussions-- on the 'Net while returning to the "tube" to watch.

The result is an abundance of creativity and innovation in programming that has been unmatched in any form of media until very recently (more on that in a moment). There are good, engaging serials and dramas (Lost, 24, Heroes, not to mention the huge successes in the realm of crime dramas, like the CSI: and Law & Order franchises); quirky and clever comedies (The Office appeals to MANY; shows like Rules of Engagement and The New Adventures of Old Christine, though a bit racy, include smart humor instead of simple crass punchlines); and a world of gameshows like we never dreamed when we used to settle for Wheel of Fortune and The Price Is Right (in addition to full-on gameshows, like Deal or No Deal, many of the so-called reality shows are really just elaborate gameshows).

Sure, some "reality" TV is lousy-- but a lot of it is a lot of fun, with emotional, relational, and psychological elements that are surprisingly engrossing (think Survivor and The Apprentice). Many of the truly successful ones are an elaborate hybrid of The Gong Show and Star Search at a level that we always hoped was possible (maybe on par with The Ed Sullivan Show at times) when we watched those shows faithfully. (I'm thinking American Idol and Last Comic Standing.)

Add to all of that the immense variety of niche programming in the form of entire channels devoted to things like gardening, history, home improvement, cooking, financial investment, and educational endeavors. "Nothing good on TV"-- have you ever watched the Discovery Channel? You could conceivably watch movies all day long for a week and not watch a repeat-- with a basic satellite subscription. Nostalgic for the old stuff? There are several channels that show re-runs of I Love Lucy and Little House on the Prairie regularly.

As another commenter (on the Unclutterer post) mentions: much of the quality of writing on TV meets or surpasses most of the contemporary fiction for sale, and much of the screenwriting done for film. Americans may watch too much TV, but the snobbish dismissal of TV as a media genre is misplaced.

Watch while you can: I predict that this "golden age" of TV will only last another handful of years. While the 'Net wasn't mature enough to be a competitor as the current TV era was coming of age, it is now: video over Internet is becoming so common as to be passe. Technology in general is "democratizing" media creativity; soon you'll see YouTube filled with independently-produced videos that rival TV in their writing and production. Over the next 5-10 years, video on the Internet will do to TV what blogging has done to printed news; it's not put out of business, but it's certainly not the go-to source for current events that it used to be. Just as every blogger is ostensibly a reporter (if they want to be), soon every amateur videographer will be a producer (if they want to be).

Brief thoughts

Here are a few ideas that don't warrant a full post in themselves.

• C.S. Lewis' second Narnia book (Voyage of the Dawn Treader) has hit the theaters. Some have pointed out that there are some significant changes from the original story line (probably some spoilers in there for some of you). Some people think this is actually an improvement on the story line. Some feel the true meaning of the original has been adulterated. Others are somewhere in the middle. I haven't seen it-- what do YOU think?


• Hilary's almost certain loss is striking some odd chords-- including the idea behind THIS piece from the New York Times, which argues that the advancement of women will be hurt from her loss. Apparently, Hilary has simultaneously positioned herself as NOT benefiting from the gender question while at the same time answering it. (Being a male, I was obviously ignorant of such high-level ideas.) Ironically, if she has marketed herself on the women's lib vote then she doesn't deserve to win. As my friend Sam Murrell suggested, to vote for Hilary Clinton ONLY because she is a woman (or Barack Obama ONLY because he is black) is to also undercut your own argument opposing others who vote AGAINST them for the same reason. Hilary can't say, "vote for me because it's time to have a woman in the White House" and then hold it against those who vote for her opposition because they don't want a woman President. Logical consistency at its simplest.


• If you've been tracking with me on the stir and kerfuffle surrounding the General Assembly overture (#9) about Deacons, Deaconesses, and Women, you may be interested to know that Wayside Presbyterian Church in the Chattanooga area has posted a page that aggregates (or at least attempts to) all of the discussion from around the web. You don't have to look far to see the sort of hard-line, slippery-slope thinking I've mentioned. (WARNING: if you love the church and are discouraged by ungodly treatment of pastors and others, read with caution. Many of these discussions are not for the faint of heart.) I DO appreciate their work, especially, in their words, that they "are not making any effort... to sort the articles into 'pro,' 'con,' or neutral. These articles come from several different viewpoints. We are just providing information."


• Along the lines of the previous item, my personal hope is that the 2009 General Assembly will appoint a study committee to consider what guidelines, if any, ought to be offered as measures of godly character and discussion for those who choose to use blogs, websites, discussion forums, and other Internet tools to debate theological and denominational matters.


• Following up on my words about the Evangelical Manifesto, Ed Stetzer released the word late last week that Ergun Caner, President and Dean of the Seminary at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, asked that his name be stricken from the charter list on the basis of his claim that he never signed it. For those who don't immediately make the connection (I didn't), Liberty is the school that the late Jerry Falwell founded and led for many years; ironically, Caner's own website describes him as "a leading voice for evangelicalism on the national stage." For another take on the Evangelical Manifesto, check out this post from Scot McKnight, Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (UPDATE: see this response to McKnight from PCA Pastor Andy Jones), and this alternative version offered by Dave Burchett, ESPN producer and Christian writer.


• If you've been following the stuggles and difficulties in the wake of the natural disaster in Myanmar (Burma), you may be interested to know that missions boards and relief organizations are now succeeding in getting funds and other aid into the area. The PCA's Mission to the World (MTW) is asking for financial assistance through its "Minutemen" program; World Vision International is also appealing for help. Both sites have ways that you can donate online.


• Here's a video I overlooked for my media tidbits on Friday: Possessed, a documentary which gives an amazing look at the worlds of hoarders. Very well done, with no commentary other than what the hoarders themselves offer. You can watch the whole thing online.

More thoughts on reading

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about reading in response to a question from one of my blog-readers. A few more thoughts have occurred to me.

On reading books:

• Keep a list for recommendations. Suggestions for good books to read come up all the time: from blogs, on the radio or TV news, in lectures, from friends. I've found it helpful to make a note of recommendations that I want to eventually follow up on-- even if I don't plan to get the book soon-- and keep a list in one place. This way, I have my list handy when I order books. I've found using an Amazon Wishlist is the easiest way for me to organize these recommendations; since I'll probably buy from Amazon anyway, this makes it particularly easy to choose from my list. (I can access Amazon-- and add to my Wishlist-- through my mobile phone, too-- so it works on the road as well.) It doesn't hurt that this makes for easier gift-giving at Christmas and birthday times.


• Have options on-hand for "what's next." If you're keeping a list, this makes it a lot easier to have options-- whether you go to the library or buy books yourself. I buy books about once a month, and I rarely order only one at a time; instead, I'll get two or three from my list (which also qualifies my order for free shipping, if I'm buying from Amazon). This way, I have a stockpile to choose from when I finish the book I'm reading.


• Keep reading. When I finish a book, I start another within 24 hours. It is easy to fall out of the habit of reading, and difficult to get back into it. Reading is exercise for your mind-- so persistent discipline for it is the same as going to the gym. Keep it up.


• Make notes about what you've read. I've begun to do this on this blog, as you may have noticed. When you finish a book, reflect on whether it was worth reading, what you learned, whether you would recommend it to someone else-- or at least that you read it!


• Catalog your books. If you buy very many books, eventually you'll amass a collection that can be difficult to keep up with or manage. I've found it helpful to keep my books cataloged in a computer database (I use a free one called Books, which is made for the Mac; there are others for Macs, some for PCs, and online options), but you could do fairly well with just a spreadsheet. Keeping track of the author, title, some publishing data, and other helpful information (like if you've lent your copy out, or the notes you made about it when you finished it) is a good minimum. My database keeps all of this, plus a lot more.

If you really want to learn more about reading books well, I actually have a few book recommendations about that: How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler; How to Read Slowly by James Sire; The Little Guide to Your Well-Read Life by Steve Leveen; and Shelf Life by George Grant.

On other reading:

• Keep newspapers in check. If you subscribe to a daily newspaper, do you read it every day? We've found that we actually read our paper more because we cut our subscription back to Saturday and Sunday only. We don't have stacks of newspapers piling up as fast as before, so we're more likely to read them. You might find that a re-evaluation of your newspaper subscriptions will keep your reading progress streamlined.


• Get your news from more than one source. It's hard to get accurate news. While it's tempting to settle for just one news source, it's likely that you won't really get a clear picture of the news, but a mostly editorialized version. I get my news from World magazine, Newsweek, the local newspapers, and the New York Times online.


• Magazines are good-- in moderation. In addition to my book reading, I also have several magazine subscriptions. I've already mentioned Newsweek and World; I also get Cooks Illustrated, Photo Techniques, ByFaith, and Leadership Journal. Magazines are great for quick, concise articles on specific topics. But they can get overwhelming too-- Marcie gets stressed out with too many magazines coming in, so we keep these in check too.


• Use RSS feeds for blogs and internet news. If you don't already know about RSS feeds, you should definitely check them out. I keep up with over 100 blogs and websites, and RSS feeds allow me to skim through more than 200 posts and updates daily in what amounts to just 1-2 hours total (and that's spread throughout the day in 10 or 15-minute increments). I don't even bother trying to read a blog that doesn't have a feed anymore-- but I haven't seen one without a feed in recent memory.

Reading is so worthwhile, but like anything worth doing it requires time and discipline. I hope that my suggestions have been helpful to make you a more effective reader.

Election Fatigue

Another week, another round of a couple more primary elections.

After Tuesday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, it became clear that Hilary Clinton could not win the primary even if the Michigan and Florida delegates were counted (because the numbers simply wouldn't amount to enough) and Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States-- even though Clinton vows to continue with her campaign.

Sure, part of the U.S. is issuing a collective sigh of relief that Hilary Clinton isn't going to be President, and folks in North Carolina and Indiana received the small joy of knowing that their primaries counted for something more than just local elections. But are the rest of us even paying attention anymore? Everywhere I turn, it seems like Election Fatigue has set in firmly.

Of course, we've known for quite a while now that John McCain is the Republican candidate for President; remember him? His campaign strategy has apparently been to keep his head down and let Hilary and Barack destroy each other's public image, while the rest of the country gets more and more tired of hearing their names and seeing them give the same speeches.

This has already been one of the longest campaigns in history-- and the sad news is that we still have six months of campaigning left. Will we make it? Has the long and tedious primary jaded us toward the importance of a Presidential election?

Book Give-Away: a winner!

Back in March (!), I offered a free copy of Andrew Peterson's On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness as a part of the "blog tour" I was participating in. Entry in the drawing was simple: answer a question about how frequently you believe a congregation should celebrate the sacrament of communion, and why.

There were five entries, and I'm pleased to (finally) announce the winner is:

Megan Dunham!

Congratulations Megan... I'll get the book in the mail to you in the next few days.

Thanks to all who participated in the drawing; your answers were interesting and helpful.

Essential non-obvious bands of the 80s

Following up on my post from Tuesday, I got to thinking about bands that didn't have one stand-out album that defined them or a part of 80s music, and that also weren't obvious stand-out bands.

Okay, apart from Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, The Police, U2, Fleetwood Mac, Michael Jackson (yes, admit it), Prince, and a few other HUGE bands, which ones were the real essential, non-obvious bands and/or artists?

• REO Speedwagon. A great band with a big sound, these guys had a clever knack that came through their songs and even their album names-- with albums called things like "You Get What You Play For," "You Can Tune A Piano, But You Can't Tuna Fish," and "Hi Infidelity." Favorites: Roll with the changes, Time for me to fly, Keep on Loving You, Take it on the run, Can't fight this feeling.


• Styx. Tons of hit songs came out of this powerhouse, which was plagued by the (apparently common) problem of a frontman with a distinctive talent and sound along with a HUGE ego that eventually made it impossible for the band to stay together. Still, they had a ton of hits (spanning both the 70s and 80s) and their music is still great. Favorites: Lady, Come Sail Away, Babe, The Best of Times, Don't Let It End, Foolin' Yourself.


• Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Another band that spanned the 70s and 80s (and 90s!), and another one that churned out hit after hit. While none of their 14 albums had more than two or three hits, the collective result is fodder for box sets and fun greatest hits discs. Favorites: Breakdown, American Girl, Refugee, Here Comes My Girl, Stop Draggin' My Heart Around, You Got Lucky, Don't Come Around Here No More, Jammin' Me, Runnin' Down a Dream, Free Fallin', You Don't Know How It Feels.


• Men at Work. This band was so quirky, but wow, did they have a great sound-- sort of aussie-rock with a hint of reggae thrown in. The lead singer, Colin Hay, has a great voice (and crazy eyes), and a great sense of self-effacing humor. Favorites: Be Good Johnny, Down Under, Who Can It Be Now? Overkill, It's A Mistake.


• The Bangles. While they weren't the first all-girl band of the 80s to hit it big (The Go-Gos beat them to it by a year), They had a longer and more successful career, and I think were a tighter band. Favorites: Manic Monday, If She Knew What She Wants, Walk Like an Egyptian, Hazy Shade of Winter.


• Journey. It's difficult to overestimate the powerhouse that Journey was in the 80s, for me at least. With a career that started in the mid-70s, they had this arena-rock sound that persevered well into the 80s (and is still solid today). Though they seemed to do the unthinkable in replacing Steve Perry as lead singer (see above reference to distinctive and difficult frontmen), the word is that the guy who replaced him (also named Steve) both looks and sounds like him. Freaky. Favorites: Wheel in the Sky, Lights, Feeling That Way/Anytime, Any Way You Want It, Who's Crying Now, Don't Stop Believin', Faithfully, Send Her My Love, Be Good to Yourself, Girl Can't Help It, I'll Be Alright Without You, Only the Young.


• Genesis/Phil Collins. These two seem to run together-- I have difficulty keeping straight which songs Collins released as solo work and which were done with the band. But it seems like every year or so, there was a hit song from either Genesis or a solo tune from Collins. Favorites: Invisible Touch, Sussudio, Against All Odds, One More Night, That's All, Turn It On Again, Throwing It All Away.


• The Cars. Another band that got its start in the 70s (noticing a theme?), these guys had sort of a funk/new wave sound to some of their stuff that played well as 80s pop. They were also quick to embrace creativity with music videos in the 80s, which lent them more success. Favorites: Just What I Needed, My Best Friend's Girl, Let's Go, Shake It Up, You Might Think, Magic, Hello Again.


• Bryan Adams. Fresh from Canada, this guy was another who had a bunch of records with a couple of real hits from each. He had a clean-cut look and a good voice, which lent to his success. Favorites: Cuts Like a Knife, Run to You, Summer of '69, It's Only Love, Please Forgive Me.


• Hall & Oates. What a great combination of 70s funk/R&B with early 80s pop-rock! These guys churned out the hits too-- every few months there was a new one on the radio. Favorites: She's Gone, Sara Smile, Rich Girl, You Make My Dreams Come True, Kiss on My List, Private Eyes, Family Man, Maneater, I Can't Go for That (No Can Do), Out of Touch.


• John Cougar Mellencamp. Maybe the worst stage name ever for a rock musician, John "Cougar" broke into stardom with American Fool, which made honorable mention in my list on Tuesday. He has a rootsy, almost country sound (indeed, he sounds more country than a lot of country musicians today), reflecting his Indiana upbringing. Favorites: Jack and Diane, Crumblin' Down, Pink Houses, Authority Song, Lonely Ol' Night, Small Town, Rain on the Scarecrow, Rumbleseat, Paper in Fire, Check It Out, Wild Night, Our Country.

When to read?

In response to one of my book listings, a member asked me, "you're a busy guy-- when do you find time to read all that you do?"

Fair question, and one that I've had to be creative in answering over the years. Here are some thoughts for folks who want to find more time to read, and/or read more effectively:

• Take it with you. I rarely leave my home or office without SOMETHING to read-- a book, a journal or magazine, or at least my phone! (I make heavy use of RSS feeds, and my feed-reader syncs with a website that makes it easy for me to read RSS feeds from my iPhone.) If I'm going to be somewhere that there is even the potential for a wait-- restaurant, doctor's appointment, picking up the kids from school, etc.-- I will use that time to read, if I can. BUT not (usually) to the neglect of social interaction with others I'm with.


• Place your reading in strategic places. I leave books and magazines around the house where I know I'll be when I might have a few minutes to read. I've usually got a stack by the chair where I usually sit in our living room and on my nightstand. (Yes, I also keep some reading in the bathroom.) And I keep something on my desk to grab when I have a minute or two at work.


• Learn to read multiples. I usually keep three or four books going at once. One of them typically emerges as the "go-to" book of choice, but for some reason I've found that my reading pace slows if I'm only reading one book. If you can train your mind to follow more than one book at once, you'll get a lot more reading done, in my experience.


• Learn to read efficiently. Not every book is one that I feel compelled to read every single word of. A professor in seminary suggested that, to read more efficiently, a good examination of the table of contents and/or index might suggest some emphases, and you may be able to determine that there are sections (even chapters) that you can skip without missing too much. Another technique: Read the first and last sentence of each paragraph, and thereby determine if the whole paragraph is important to read. (One would hope that this method wouldn't be necessary, because every word should be important, right? But in our day, editing is done with a light hand, if it's done at all, and books are often repetitive.) Two notes here: first, this doesn't work for fiction books! Second, I don't employ this method for most of the books I read, and you may find that, like me, you prefer to read more slowly and absorb a book, rather than skimming it quickly.


• Know when to stop. Here's a freeing concept: you don't HAVE to finish every book you start! If you find that a book just isn't offering you much, or you think that you've probably gotten the gist of it, feel free to put it down-- for now, or for good. Not all of every book was written for you; some books aren't really suited for you at all, while others will have sections that just don't apply. Discerning when these are true can free you to use your valuable reading time more effectively.


• Make time to read. This one seems obvious, but most of us have a dozen things that we would do with endless amounts of time that get neglected in day-to-day life. Just like everything else, if reading isn't a priority to you, you won't "find the time" to do it. It helps me to know that, several nights a week, I will read at night before going to sleep. Often, I sacrifice a few minutes of sleep to read a few more pages.


• Read quickly. Some people have found that taking a speed-reading class is very helpful. Others (like me) just process words rapidly. If Marcie and I are both reading the same article, I usually finish it when she is about two-thirds of the way through it. I don't know why, but I just read fast. If there's a way to develop this, you might benefit from finding it.

Another important thing to keep in mind: part of my job is to read. I'm currently preparing one sermon, plus lessons for two other teaching times-- each week. As a result, I do a lot of study, and a big part of my study is reading. If your job doesn't call on you to read, then it isn't fair to compare your reading habits to mine. There are a lot of people that read much more than I do; it is said that Theodore Roosevelt read a book a day, even while in the White House. A friend of mine reads about 100 books a year-- which is probably twice what I read. I don't find it helpful to compare my accomplishments in reading to others, but simply to read as much as I am able.