No More Theology!

At least for the rest of 2009.

I recently made the commitment that I would read no more books of theology for the rest of the year, and instead focus on reading books only for pleasure, including some that I've been hoping to read for a while.

Apparently some friends of mine--and indeed my own wife--do not believe that I have the self-control and will-power to avoid the temptation of sneaking a peek at the writings of Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, or (God forbid) Wesley.

I usually make "reading lists" to keep me on task, so to prove to my friends that at least my intentions are true, here are the eight books I have slated to enjoy until the New Years' Day:

Walker Percy, The Thanatos Syndrome
Charles Williams, All Hallow's Eve
Agatha Christie, Death on the Nile
Dorothy L. Sayers, Clouds of Witness
Mickey Spillane, One Lonely Night
Henrik Ibsen, Rosmersholm
Edmund Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac
James Ellroy, Clandestine

So, to all you unbelievers out there, wish me happy reading!

C. S. Lewis on President Obama and the Congressional Democrats:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Jeff's Oscars - The 80's

1989
Oscar's Pick - Driving Miss Daisy
Jeff's Pick - Glory
How was this film not even nominated for Best Picture, while the feel-good flick Field of Dreams was? Glory is one of the best Civil War dramas ever made, based on the first African American regiment of soldiers to go into battle. It is a poetic story of African Americans as moral and military heroes, an inspiring true account of men who learn to fight and die together. Compelling cinematography, visual effects, costumes, and music. And most compelling of all is Denzel Washington, who deservingly won the Supporting Actor prize for his flawless portrayal as a bitter ex-slave who transforms his hatred into grace.

1988
Oscar's Pick - Rain Man
Jeff's Pick - Rain Man
Very simply, this is a character-driven drama that would have either risen or fallen depending the portrayal of the two brothers, especially the autistic Raymond. Dustin Hoffman did not disappoint...he played the part to the hilt and rightly was awarded the Best Actor Oscar. Tom Cruise elevated his image above that of a Hollywood pretty boy, and the chemistry of the two actors is what made the film worthy of the Oscar. Well, that and the fact that the other nominated films left a lot to be desired.

1987
Oscar's Pick - The Last Emperor
Jeff's Pick - The Last Emperor
From what I know, there were at least a few historical inaccuracies in this epic film by Bernardo Bertolucci. But artistically, no other film made that year could hold a candle to The Last Emperor. The performances (especially by John Lone and Peter O'Toole), the cinematography within the Forbidden City, the exotic musical score, and the artistic direction all are employed perfectly to entertain and inspire.

1986
Oscar's Pick - Platoon
Jeff's Pick - The Mission
My rejection of Platoon possibly stems from my general dislike of Oliver Stone, his leftist politics and his revisionist approach to history. But acknowledging this bias, I still think The Mission is a superior film...and the folks at the Cannes Film Festival obviously agreed with me when they awarded it the coveted Palme d'Or. Things that stand out to me are Chris Menges' cinematography, Ennio Morricone's music, the theme of worldly violence vs. Christian pacifism, and Jeremy Iron's heartfelt portrayal of a compassionate Jesuit missionary.

1985
Oscar's Pick - Out of Africa
Jeff's Pick - Witness
Harrison Ford is definitely more of a "star" than an "actor," but I truly believe he deserved the Oscar for his portrayal of Philadelphia cop John Book. Witness, which contrasts the violent corruption of the city with the pastoral simplicity of the Amish, is a true achievement of director Peter Weir. At its heart is the innocence of an Amish boy (superlatively portrayed by Lukas Haas) who witnesses a brutal homicide, but who is also a witness to the world-weary John Book that there is another way to look at life.

1984
Oscar's Pick - Amadeus
Jeff's Pick - Amadeus
Milos Forman's film, which tells the story of the rivalry between Mozart and Salieri, is a brilliant account of an artist (Mozart) yearning to break free from the restrictive maxims of his day that stifled his true creativity, and a portrait of another artist (Salieri) whose burning envy of that creativity literally drove him mad. F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce both give impeccable interpretations, and it is a historical drama of the highest order. Maurice Jarre, who won the Best Original Score Oscar for A Passage to India, should have been thankful that Amadeus' composer (Mozart himself) was ineligible to be nominated!

1983
Oscar's Pick - Terms of Endearment
Jeff's Pick - Tender Mercies
Like 1988, this was a year dominated by "small" films...but I think Terms of Endearment is a little too small. Tender Mercies features a performance by Robert Duvall, who is, in my opinion, one of the greatest film actors of all time. It's a serious story about one man's repentance and redemption, and it relies on genuine emotional drama to keep our attention (in contrast with Terms of Endearment, which relies on the overdone humor of Jack Nicholson).

1982
Oscar's Pick - Gandhi
Jeff's Pick - E. T.
I thought Gandhi was an honest, not-too-sentimental attempt to honor a true hero, and it certainly deserved highest honors. But in this case, I'm going with sentiment and picking one of the first films I remember seeing in the theater at age 9, with my brother Greg and my friend Jeff Poerstel. I'll always look at E. T. through the eyes of a 9-year-old, and I'm sorry...it was just a great film!

1981
Oscar's Pick - Chariots of Fire
Jeff's Pick - Chariots of Fire
Everybody thought that the Academy would stay true to its leftist politics and its penchant for awarding "big" films by giving the highest honor to Warren Beatty's Reds. What a refreshing surprise that they broke form and honored a truly great and inspiring film that uplifts Christian commitment, heroic optimism, and individual integrity...rather than a film that glorified collectivism and "revolution." My favorite line of the film: "My arrogance extends only as far as my conscience demands." Amen!

1980
Oscar's Pick - Ordinary People
Jeff's Pick - Ordinary People
This film does the same thing that American Beauty did 19 years later: it exposes the superficial facade that hides a deep alienation and spiritual emptiness among American suburbanites. But Ordinary People does it much better. The plot is less contrived, the characters more realistic, and the ultimate message less morbid. And as for the performances: Timothy Hutton as a confused and angry teen, Mary Tyler Moore as a repressed and superficial mother, and Judd Hirsch as the compassionate counselor... just great acting! Kudos to director Robert Redford for a great film!

Jeff's Oscars - The 90's

1999
Oscar's Pick - American Beauty
Jeff's Pick - The Insider
I enjoyed American Beauty mainly because of its open homage to other Oscar-winning films that I love, like The Apartment and Ordinary People. Its story and performances were a little overdone, in my opinion. The Insider, on the other hand, is an intense and complex story with a real issue of moral integrity, and it is executed flawlessly by director Michael Mann and actors Al Pacino and Russell Crowe. Again, Crowe should have one for this performance, not for Gladiator.

1998
Oscar's Pick - Shakespeare in Love
Jeff's Pick - The Thin Red Line
Terrence Malick is perhaps one of the most underrated directors in Hollywood, and I personally believe that The Thin Red Line is a masterpiece, both in its visual spectacle and its poignant script. Set during World War II, it contrasts the horror of modern warfare with the natural beauty of Guadalcanal and its native population. Even deeper, it allows the viewer to experience the internal conflicts and diverse perspectives of the American soldiers, most notably the character played by Jim Caviezel. A little slow-moving, yes, but well worth it!

1997
Oscar's Pick - Titanic
Jeff's Pick - L. A. Confidential
Oscar went with popular sentiment and voted for the "big" film, with 15 nominations and 11 wins. But seriously, L. A. Confidential stands with The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, and Chinatown as one of the classics of film noir. Kim Basinger's win for supporting actress should have been met with, at the very least, nominations for Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, and Guy Pearce...all who deliver pristine performances as 1950's L. A. detectives. In my opinion, L. A. Confidential is the iceberg that should have sunk Titanic.

1996
Oscar's Pick - The English Patient
Jeff's Pick - Fargo
Again, the "big" film won. And what exactly was the point of The English Patient? I mean, other than it being a way-overdone love story? Ethan and Joel Coen made a great film in Fargo. Is it a thriller? A comedy? A crime drama? (Apparently it's even based on a real-life story). And the acting from Frances McDormand, William H. Macy, and Steve Buscemi was just plain fantastic. When The English Patient won, all I could do is sit in...total silence.

1995
Oscar's Pick - Braveheart
Jeff's Pick - Braveheart
Okay, so sometimes I think the "big" film should win, and this is one clear example. Gibson took a great script by Randall Wallace and then weaved in the scenery of Scotland, evocative music, fervid battle sequences, and earnest performances to perfectly express the emotional depth of that script. In the category of historical dramas, this film rates as one of the all-time best.

1994
Oscar's Pick - Forrest Gump
Jeff's Pick - The Shawshank Redemption
I had a tough time on this one, because I do love Forrest Gump and think it's a great film. But in this particular case, I have a bias towards any films that were made in a town where I lived, and Shawshank was made in Ashland, Ohio where I attended college and seminary. (The old prison still exists in nearby Mansfield). Plus, it's based on a favorite short story by Stephen King, and I think Morgan Freeman should have won Best Actor for this one.

1993
Oscar's Pick - Schindler's List
Jeff's Pick - Schindler's List
I think The Pianist is a better Holocaust drama (see my last post), but after years of being snubbed by the Academy for other great films (Jaws, E.T., and The Color Purple) they finally rewarded Spielberg's brilliance for this mature, passionate movie. The black-and-white adds atmosphere, John Williams' score sets a perfect tone, Ralph Fiennes is absolutely remarkable in revealing the psychology of a Nazi, and the last scene with the real "Schindler Jews" was a great sentimental touch.

1992
Oscar's Pick - Unforgiven
Jeff's Pick - Unforgiven
It's been a while since I saw this film, but I remember being impressed with how different it was from earlier Eastwood westerns. It seemed less about the violence (although there was quite a bit) and more about the reflective nature of Eastwood's character. Definitely not your typical western, but one thoroughly deserving of Oscar.

1991
Oscar's Pick - The Silence of the Lambs
Jeff's Pick - The Silence of the Lambs
If it's possible for a horror film to be psychologically deep and philosophically intelligent, this film does that and more. Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster deliver two of the best performance ever to grace the screen. Director Jonathan Demme uses ever frame of film to deliver symbolism and reinforce the bizarre nature of the plot. Every time I watch this film, I catch something I missed before.

1990
Oscar's Pick - Dances with Wolves
Jeff's Pick - Goodfellas
Yeah, I like Kevin Costner's film, but it was a little too "politically correct" for my taste. Martin Scorsese is a great director, and crime drama is his forte. This is one of the films he should have won the Oscar for (Taxi Driver is another), and not for The Departed.

Jeff's Oscars - the 2000's

I am a movie buff, and I have been following the Oscars for at least twenty years. Like all democratic votes, sometimes we agree with the results, and sometimes we don't. In my opinion, some years Oscar has gotten it right, and other years it really missed the boat. So for the next few posts, here are my picks for "Best Picture of the Year" and how they square up with the Academy's vote:

2008:

Oscar's Pick - Slumdog Millionaire

Jeff's Pick - The Dark Knight

Don't get me wrong...Slumdog is a great film. But The Dark Knight brought powerful performances, philosophical insight, incredible cinematography, emotional depth, and cultural relevance to the popular superhero story. And it wasn't even nominated for Best Picture! Shame on you, Academy!

2007:

Oscar's Pick - No Country for Old Men

Jeff's Pick - No Country for Old Men

Oscar got it right, even though it had some stiff competition from There Will Be Blood. For my thoughts on this particular movie, check out my post earlier on this blog.

2006:

Oscar's Pick - The Departed

Jeff's Pick - Pan's Labyrinth

The Academy went sentimental and gave overdue kudos to veteran Martin Scorsese as an apology for overlooking his brilliant work in Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Gangs of new York, and The Aviator. However, choosing not on sentiment but actual cinematic achievement, I think they should have picked the (again, not even nominated) Pan's Labyrinth, an aesthetically brilliant and emotionally touching fantasy by Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro.

2005:

Oscar's Pick - Crash

Jeff's Pick - Crash

A brilliant script, fueled by intense performance (many of which deserved to be nominated), and addressing a very sensitive topic of racism with honesty, integrity, and even humor...I literally cheered when Jack Nicholson read the envelope!

2004:

Oscar's Pick - Million Dollar Baby

Jeff's Pick - Hotel Rwanda

Okay, Clint Eastwood is a great director, and Million Dollar Baby was a good movie. But yet again, the Academy didn't even nominate Hotel Rwanda, which was a movie bigger in scope and a much more profound message. Don Cheadle and Sophie Okenado give amazing performances.

2003:

Oscar's Pick - Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Jeff's Pick - Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Peter Jackson did as good a job as anyone could in bringing Tolkien's masterpiece to the screen. It's just a brilliant film.

2002:

Oscar's Pick - Chicago

Jeff's Pick - The Pianist

I don't think Chicago can hold a candle to some of the great film musicals of the past, some of which did not win Best Picture. Now, don't get me wrong: I have no personal respect at all for Roman Polanski and think he should stay in prison. But hell, he's made some great films (Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown, just to name two favorites). And The Pianist deals with the Holocaust in an honest, artistically humble, and historically precise way...rather than overtly sentimentalizing it like Spielberg did in Schindler's List. It is truly a masterpiece by a great director.

2001:

Oscar's Pick - A Beautiful Mind

Jeff's Pick - Gosford Park

I enjoyed A Beautiful Mind and think Russell Crowe deserved to win the Oscar for this performance, rather than for his bravado turn in Gladiator. But for my mind, Gosford Park combines a lucid theme, an incredible ensemble cast, a profound script, and magnificent artistry...all brought together by the beautiful mind of a humble but powerful director: Robert Altman. A favorite to watch with my wife!

2000:

Oscar's Pick - Gladiator

Jeff's Pick - Traffic

Gladiator was a visual spectacle...and a testosterone-packed guy film...and that's about the extent of it. Traffic probes the reality of drug trafficking and its effect on all segments of American society, and it is a sobering critique of the superficial means often used to address it (and other deep problems). It features another incredible ensemble cast, including riveting performances by Michael Douglas, Benicio Del Toro, and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

More to come...

Inklings and Emergents

I have made no apology about my obsession with The Inklings, whose writings have shaped my thinking more than any others (except--hopefully--for the Bible). I also attempt to keep up on what is current in Christian thinking and practice, not because I'm particularly interested in being "relevant" or "with it" but because we must follow Christ's command to read the signs of the times. For that reason, I also am interested in listening to the leaders of the Emerging Church like Brian McClaren, Dan Kimball, Spencer Burke, and Tony Jones.

I recently brought these two stands of thought together and came up with a remarkable observation: the two groups of Christian thinkers have some interesting commonalities, as well as some telling divergences.

Here's what I think:

COMMONALITIES:

1 - Both groups regarded themselves as an "informal conversation" rather than a formal, structured church ministry. Their conversation generally occurred outside the framework of institutional religion - in fact, more often than not, it occurs in pubs with pints of beer in abundance.

2 - Both groups are "trans-denominational," drawing from all backgrounds and theological perspectives.

3 - Both groups were critical of modern rationalism which confines all truth to scientific categories and all religious belief into a shallow, respectable "churchianity."

4 - Likewise, both groups were critical of the modernist view of God (almost Deism) and sought to reclaim the free, wild, sovereign Christ who shatters all of our pretentions and dares us to follow Him.

5 - Both groups prefered to use the arts (rather than systematic treatises) to communicate the Christian faith, seeking to engage the "intuitive imagination" (rather than just reason) of their audiences.

6 - Both groups had severe criticism for the institutional churches of their age for being more interested in self-preservation than in communicating Christian truth to people in contemporary language and in practical ways.

7 - Interestingly (but perhaps superficially), both groups were composed of white males. This is not a criticism of either group. It does, however, point to an irony in the Emergent movement, a movement which claims to represent a more diverse Christianity than that of the modern church.

DIVERGENCES:

1 - While the Inklings were made up almost exclusively of laymen, most of the Emerging Christians are either pastors or have served in some official capacity in a local church.

2 - The Inklings may have been deeply critical of the open heresy and sin in various Christian communions, but they were entirely supportive of (and indeed, loved) The Church as an institutional reality. On the contrary, most Emerging Christians are (at the very least) critical of The Church as an institutional reality, some of them opting to leave the church entirely. They stress the relational aspect of the Gospel almost to the point that they believe that the Institution is more of a hindrance than a means of furthering the relationship.

3 - The Inklings believed that their role was to bring the Church back to its basic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and to fight against a watered-down, relativistic gospel that seemed prevalent in many denominations. Emergents, on the other hand, seem to believe that their role is to bring the Church into a greater engagement with American Culture, even as they present a very watered-down, relativistic gospel...even to the point of denying the exclusivity of Jesus Christ or His substitutionary atonement on the Cross.

4 - The Inklings followed the wisdom of the ancient and medievals writers who believed that, while our knowledge may not be 100% perfect, our minds are capable of reasoning, making judgments, and knowing the difference between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Conversely, Emergent Christians are deeply suspicious of any truth claims and seem offended by any inference that a person must choose either/or.

5 - The Inklings, by and large, held a high view of the Bible and of the historic confessions of the Church. For them, these are not "living documents" to be updated in different cultural realities, but truth statements that confront all cultures and challenge people to repent and believe. Obviously, the Emergents have a much more watered-down view of Scripture and the Creeds, believing that nothing in Scripture is above culture. Therefore, cultural realities become the standard by which to interpret Scripture and the Creeds (rather than the other way around).

Well, that's what I think. What do you think?

Blessed Are the "Peace-talkers?"

President Barack Obama has been rewarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Interestingly, the deadline for nominations for the prize was February 1, less than two weeks after Obama took the Oath of Office. Before becoming President, Obama's major accomplishments were serving as a "community organizer" alongside corrupt Chicago politicians, voting "present" for a majority of Senate roll calls, and authoring two memoirs glorifying his own personal history and experience.

So apparently in less than two weeks as an actual national leader, "somebody" felt he had accomplished enough to merit being placed alongside the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa. (On the other hand, more recent Nobel Peace Prize winners include Al Gore and Jimmy Carter; apparently their standards have gone down considerably in recent years.)

Here is the reasoning behind the decision to award Obama:

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."
He added that the committee endorsed "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'" - KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers

Translation: "We do not recognize that Obama has achieved anything for the cause of peace. But, he himself is a 'symbol for peace' and he talks about peace an awful lot. By the way, we endorse his politics (and you can shove that up your you-know-what, George W. Bush!)."

If being a symbol of peace, and talking about peace an awful lot, and "capturing the world's attention" is enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize, why not give it to actor Ben Kingsley for his riveting portrayal of Gandhi? Or better yet, why not give it to David Letterman, who finally humbled himself enough to apologize to (and thereby make peace with) Sarah Palin?

Only history can judge if Obama's national and international political tactics will achieve a lasting peace. People are simply unable to view their own times objectively, and they are not able to fully grasp all the consequences of their ideas, decisions and actions. Simply speaking the language of peace means, in the long run, very little.

For example, in the 1930's, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain adhered to an international politics similar to Obama's - to meet hostile forces without preconditions, to apologize for his own nation's actions, and to seek compromise or agreement wherever possible. None of this did anything to deter the aggression of Nazi Germany or prevent World War II. Can we honestly call Chamberlain a "peace-maker?"

On the other hand, the 70-year-long Cold War was effectively ended, at least in part, due to three individuals: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. All three of them took a hard line stance against Soviet Communism, refused to apologize at all for their own positions, and (in the case of Reagan and Thatcher) strengthened their countries militarily in order to go to war if necessary. The result? The Communist bully backed down, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Berlin Wall was dismantled, and Western ideas such as freedom, justice, and Christianity are now openly proclaimed among the former Soviet peoples.

Jesus said "Blessed are the peace makers" - i.e., people whose concrete actions (of whatever sort) actually bring about peace in the world. (And as he said somewhere else, "The tree is known by its fruit" - i.e., not by its good intentions.)

On the other hand, the prophet Jeremiah criticizes people who "dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace."

And the Apostle Paul warns, "While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape."

All due respect to the Office of the President...but in my humble opinion, Barack Obama most certainly does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, and his receiving it is an insult to all true peace-makers.

Then again, maybe I'm making too much of nothing. After all, past nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize include Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and yes, even Adolf Hitler. Maybe it's not the honor everybody thinks it is.

A Conservative Alternative

Earlier today I read an article written by Governor Bobby Jindal (R - Louisiana), which was published in The Washington Post. The article can be found in full here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402003_pf.html

I have been praying that the Republicans would cease their usual method of merely attacking the Democrats' health care reform agenda (ala Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc...) or their equally odious method of kowtowing to the Democrats on all fundamental issues (ala John McCain and many, many others), and instead offer a rational, constructive vision for health care reform based on consistent conservative principles.

This article by Jindal is the first I've seen that seems a true answer to my prayers. It is intelligent and clearly outlined, and seems to be based on a desire to address the real concerns of the American people (rather than a discredited ideology and dubious special interest groups, as the Liberals' plan does). I realize this is just an outline, and I'm not saying I agree with every word of it, but it is nice to see this kind of proactiveness coming from the Right these days.

Many early analysis shows Jindal to be a frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2012 Presidential election. I have seen him on TV only a few times, and I don't know his position on all issues facing our nation. But I intend to watch him with great interest in the future.

A Christian Horror Novel!

Recently, I re-read Descent into Hell by Charles Williams. Williams was an "Inkling," friend and colleague of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, whose work spans literary criticism (of Dante and other medieval writers), theology (specifically on the religious meaning of love), church history, and...believe it or not, popular thriller novels (of which Descent into Hell is perhaps his greatest).

C. S. Lewis was once asked to list the top ten books that influenced his own theological perspective. Lewis included Descent into Hell on that list, and one can discern clear influences from that work in many of Lewis' own books, including The Great Divorce, Till We Have Faces, and The Problem of Pain (just to name a few).

The book is a thriller in that several of its characters experience supernatural visions or revelations which are indeed frightening. But in its basic theme, it asks and then attempts to answer a very deep philosophical problem: Can something be both frightening and good at the same time?

In the novel, the characters who most clearly "descend into hell" are those who live lives of utter detachment from the world and other people, and choose to love only the vanity of their own thoughts and ideals. Out of fear of an imperfect reality, they retreat into their own minds and neglect the need to be confronted with anything "other," thereby depriving themselves of redemptive relationship. Implicitly narcissistic, they love only their own musings and emotions and offer only bitter contempt for actual reality.

This reminds me of a quote from one of Williams' contemporaries, T. S. Eliot: "Hell is oneself, hell is alone, the other figures in it merely projections. There is nothing to escape from and nothing to escape to. One is always alone." In their desire to protect themselves from the imperfection of this earth and of other people, lost people unwittingly secure their own damnation. For the first step to salvation is to love what is outside ourselves, frightening as that may be for us contemporary Americans who have made self-love, self-reliance, or self-esteem the summum bonum of life. Indeed, to love (and be loved by) a God who is wholly other than us requires that we deny ourselves all together and seek Christ.

While occasionally a cumbersome read, the book is filled with delightful humor, poignant moments of grace, and raw truthfulness about our predisposition to sinful self love. I won't give away any more of the plot, and thereby rob you of a great read. But I will offer you Williams' conclusion to the question raised above:

"Salvation is quite often a terrible thing--a frightening good."

[P.S. - Since Halloween is coming up, I plan on reading another of Williams' thrillers, All Hallow's Eve, and Lord willing I'll have a post on it before Oct. 31!]