Chekhov’s Checklist

When Russian author Anton Chekhov wrote to his brother to give fiction writing advice, he gave the following points that make a good story:

  1. Simplicity: lack of posturing of a political/social/economic nature
  2. Total objectivity: observation rather than adornment
  3. Truthfulness: true-to-life descriptions of persons and objects
  4. Extreme brevity: economy of style
  5. Boldness and originality: flee the stereotype
  6. Compassion: understanding not judgment

Booklog (October 27 – October 31, 2011)

In this period I’ve completed:

  • Lit!: A Christian Guide to Reading Books by Tony Reinke (224 pages): See my review.
  • The Barber Who Wanted to Pray by R.C. Sproul (40 pages): Really simple and enjoyable.
  • J.R.R. Tolkien by Catharine Stimpson (48 pages): A raving essay from 1969. Typical of some of the more unrelenting literati assaults on Tolkien. She calls his work “bogus”, “weak prose”, and “pernicious thought”. To her, Tolkien is “irritatingly, blandly, traditionally masculine”. I think she has a thing for Tolkien. Beside her hardened criticism, there is a moderate amount of mildly interesting analysis.

This places the running total for books(*)  completed in 2011 at 86.

* Note: I regard paper, audio, and electronic books to be rightfully considered books.

A Review of Lit! by Tony Reinke


Product Link on Amazon

Highly recommended! There is a ton to gain here for the Christian, whether or not they love to read. Christians have been (and ought to be) people of words and people of books. Tony builds a sturdy, textured theology of reading. He then proceeds to outline practical advice regard reading.

A skillful, imaginative approach to reading is recommended. Rather than just giving trite platitudes or pat answers, Tony rolls up his sleeve and gets down to the hard work involved. His writing is rather exploratory and his material includes a good balance between abstract/concrete and personal/impersonal.

Tony shows how literature embodies worldviews. He shows the importance of reading non-Christian books. He recommends imaginative literature and shows how the imagination is central to all reading, including the Bible. He commends balance and discernment. He shows how reading is by nature selective, since there are so many millions of books out there. He shares advice about marking/highlighting and how many books to read at a time. I must also note that even the end-notes are quite a valuable repository of references,and there are certainly a few books references there that I’d love to check out also.

I would say that the ending of the book was a bit of a let-down. The ending is slightly weak and kind of abrupt, but other than that this is a real gem! Ultimately, Tony’s goal seems to be to encourage people to read for pleasure and for God’s glory. This book will do a fine job of encouraging you in that direction and is well worth what you pay to get it. I’m so glad I discovered Tony’s book via an interview.

One Thousand Thoughts About Church…#764

“The starting point in considering the question of unity must always be regeneration and belief of the truth. Nothing else produces unity, and, as we have seen clearly, it is impossible apart from this.

An appearance or a facade of unity based on anything else, and at the expense of these two criteria, or which ignores them, is clearly a fraud and a lie. People are not one, nor in a state of unity, who disagree about fundamental questions such as:

(a) whether we submit ourselves utterly to revealed truth or rely ultimately upon our reason and human thinking;

(b) the historic fall, and man’s present state and condition in sin, under the wrath of God, and in complete helplessness and hopelessness as regards salvation; and

(c) the person of our Lord Jesus Christ and the utter, absolute necessity, and sole sufficiency, of His substitutionary atoning work for sinners.

To give the impression that they are one simply because of a common outward organization is not only to mislead the world which is outside the church but to be guilty of a lie.” – Martyn Lloyd-Jones

No…. I Wrote a *German* Poem

When the House Un-American Activities Committee questioned poet and novelist Berholt Brecht, one of the most humorous moments of the Red Scare transpired. When they quoted one of his poems and asked if he wrote it, he replied: “No, I wrote a German poem”. The audience laughed.

Here is a video:

You’re Not Asking The Questions. The Investigators Are Asking The Questions!

When Oscar-winning screen writer and novelist Dalton Drumbo was called before the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) during the Red Scare, he was asked, as the procedure went, whether he is or ever was a member of the Communist party, he responded with a question on a point of fact. He was then humorously chastened “You’re not asking the questions. The investigators are asking the questions!”

You can see their exchange in the following video.

Have You No Decency?

This fascinating historical Red Scare era video shows a landmark in the downfall of Joseph McCarthy.  Here the lawyer for the U.S. Army confronts the bombastic McCarthy (who is making a huge deal of the fact that the law firm has an employee who is part of the lawyers guild) and basically puts him in his place with the famous phrase “Have you no sense of decency sir?” followed by an audience applause. You can see the audacity and bullheadedness of a McCarthy in this video. I really think that at this point even the mainstream of America was starting to get sick and tired of McCarthy even though the fear of the Reds still prevailed.

I think the ever-present lesson to be draw from these Red Scare hearings, a lesson which unfortunately seems to be continually forgotten, is that you can’t fight evil with evil–you can’t fight tyranny with tyranny–you can’t fight repression with repression–you can’t fight totalitarianism with more totalitarianism. Any effective critique, response, or attack on a thing must come from its antithesis in at least some meaningful sense.  Though I am emphatically not a communist, it is very apparent to me that the anti-communism of the cold war era lack credibility precisely because it was so willing to borrow communistic methods in order to fight against communism. If we truly believe in freedom, then we have to extend that freedom, yes, even to those who have convictions that despise or negate that freedom.

For an interesting, longer view of some of the unrest that occurred during the HUAC hearings (from a decidedly pro-establishment perspective), check out this video from 1960.

Two Types of Evil in Literature

“I do not encourage you to avoid books that mention evil. Many of the greatest works of literature are written from a perspective that captures the dark realities of life. This makes it impossible to reject books merely because they include bloody violence, illicit sexuality, scornful unbelief, or dark witchcraft. The Bible includes stories of all four.

The more important questions are these: How is [it] presented? Is it presented as evil? … Does the book celebrate sin, or leave evil unresolved?” – Tony Reinke in Lit!

One Thousand Thoughts About Church…#766

“And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” – I Corinthians 2:1-5

One Thousand Thoughts About Church…#767

“As a pastor, I’m scared of becoming nothing more than an earnest gate agent. I’m afraid of calling people to places I’ve never been. Of course, pastors are humans too. None of us have arrived. There must be room for aspiration and inspiring ourselves (so to speak) even as we try to inspire others. But my fear is that I would keep preaching about God, without really communing with Him. That I would stir people to obedience I don’t really take seriously. That I would speak earnestly of an affection for Christ that I am not earnestly pursuing. I give so many sermons and talk about God so often, I fear that I may end up exhorting people with exhortations I’ve learned to ignore.” – Kevin Deyoung

One Thousand Thoughts About Church…#768

“Love conceals sins—it puts them out of mind and refuses to let them divide brothers from each other. But it also covers sins like a soaking wet blanket covers a fire: it smothers them, cuts off their air supply, and keeps them from spreading and doing any more harm.

Church discipline is the gospel in action. Just as God doesn’t leave us in our sin but comes to us in rebuking grace, so we also extend that grace to others.

So, despite the pain and discomfort it can bring, we shouldn’t treat dealing with sin in the church as a dirty chore. Instead, we should count it a solemn privilege to imitate the Good Shepherd who left the ninety nine on the hillside to go after the one straying sheep—which is each one of us.” – Bobby Jamieson

Why Foreign Policy Matters So Much To Me

Why am I so often talking about foreign policy on here?

  1. What the state does in my or your name is not a matter of indifference, but rather a grave matter. Even a just war has grave consequences, let alone an unjust one. And the consequences trickle down to everyone, not just the ones that wage the war. In fact, arguably, in many circumstances the decision makers face less of the blowback personally than your average citizen, even if the decision makes acts were criminal (or near criminal). Foreign policy has consequences on you and I, our children, our grandchildren, etc.
  2. I want government powers to obey Proverbs 20:18 “Plans are established by counsel; by wise guidance wage war.”. I believe wisdom in war means, first of all determining whether it is really necessary and then proceeding to avoid all wars that are unjust. I believe there has been a marked lack of wisdom in the foreign policy of the Western powers, especially in the past 50-60 years. And its not just “the right” or “the left”, its systemic.
  3. Not only is it of importance to know what the state I live in does in my name, but also the foreign policy of other countries greatly affects me in the ways mentioned in #1.
  4. If it were a merely political partisan issue, I would have less interest in it. But its important, relevant, and facts clearly transcend partisanship. When I say XYZ as foreign policy, I’m not saying this as a particular party position but rather a heartfelt conviction based on the information I have.
  5. So many other important and commonly explored and lamented political issues are related to (and adversely affected by) a bad foreign policy. Economics, excessive taxation, liberty of conscience, liberty of free expression, etc.  all relate to the issue.
  6. If you (or your kids or grandkids) plan to travel and do international business safely and without restrictions,  foreign policy matters.
  7. Due to the amount of hubris and propaganda circulated regarding foreign policy and war, usually there are vast areas or subjects or approaches that are vastly ignored and need exploration.
  8. War is the health of the big-government state and so I can’t consistently be against “big government” without being critical of the modern warfare state. I can’t complain about spending if I’m unwilling to advocate cutting one of the biggest expenses ever (military/foreign-aid/foreign-meddling spending).
  9. There are many interesting angles to the question(s) involved (ie. history, technology, movements, disputes, land features, different cultures, etc.)
  10. I feel that there is a remarkable shortage of theologically-conservative Christian, non-pacifist, pro-freemarket people who consistently speak out against imperialism, wars of aggression, foreign policies of meddling, etc. regardless of what political party or philosophy they come from. Not that they don’t exist, but they seem to be marginalized by folks who are crying out for war, aggression, intervention, etc.
  11. I’ve seen enough history (repeating itself) to see that so many of the prevailing approaches to foreign policy just don’t get it…
  12. Domestic policy tends to mirror foreign policy in some sort of way (so if your foreign policy is tyrannical, eventually or in some fashion your domestic policy will be similar or become similar). And we can’t consistently object to the poor treatment of our citizens if we advocated that treatment to others just because they happened to be in another country and on the other side of a controversy. Bad foreign policy brings about many temptations towards statism: suppression of dissent, restriction of free speech, conscription, etc.
  13. There is almost always blowback and if we want to minimize our countries risk of negative effects, we must study our actions and examine them in light of the consequences (for us and others).

Rothbard on Reagan’s Foreign and Economic Policy

General

  • “The quintessence of Ronald Reagan is that he is a master in supplying the conservative movement with the rhetoric they want to hear. In all politicians there is a gulf between rhetoric and reality, but in Ronald Reagan that gulf has become a veritable and mighty ocean. There seems to be no contact whatever between Ronnie the rhetorician and Ronnie the maker of policy. In that situation it is hard to know which one is ‘the real’ Reagan.”

Foreign Policy – Lebanon

  • “The second flagrant defiance of the law was Reagan’s refusal to obey the War Powers Act, by which Congress ordered the President to subject the maintenance of U.S. troops abroad to its wishes as soon as these troops become subject to actual hostilities. U.S. Marines have been killed in Beirut, and yet the President stubbornly refused to obey the War Powers Act, and only grudgingly agreed to a compromise when Congress knuckled under and ratified the Marines staying in Lebanon for at least another 18 months.”
  • “Just as in Vietnam, we hear from the Reagan Administration that, whether or not the Marines should have been there in the first place, once they are there they cannot be pulled out, else the U.S. will lose its ‘credibility.’ Once a ‘commitment’ is made, no matter how idiotic, it must be pursued to and beyond the bitter end in order to preserve American ‘credibility.’“
  • “It is fitting to conclude by noting Ronald Reagan’s allegedly noble gesture in ‘taking full responsibility” for the fact that the truck-bombing killed 241 ill-prepared and badly defended Marines. In this way, by drawing all sin upon his own head, Reagan let our incompetent military commanders off the hook. A noble gesture? But let us examine this: In precisely what sense did Reagan ‘take responsibility’ for the killing of a large number of Americans? Clearly in no sense, for the limit of Ronnie’s assumption of responsibility is obviously his oral statement. After which statement, we are supposed to forget about the whole thing…What should ‘taking responsibility’ for the deaths of hundreds mean?”

Foreign Policy – Grenada

  • “Reagan on October 25 invaded the tiny island nation of Grenada, along with a few measly troops from neighboring client governments used as a flimsy cover. Not only was this a reprehensible act of aggression…it violated every tenet of international law and of U.S. treaties…Even more of a violation  is a naked act of aggression against another state and its people…As a friend of mine suggested, ‘Reagan has been anxious to Win One for the Gipper, and so he finally picked on a country he could-probably-beat.’ But even teeny Grenada minus an army gave us unexpected trouble, the Pentagon admitting that it had greatly underestimated the fighting capabilities of the Grenadians and of the Cuban construction workers (!) In fact, to defeat several hundred Grenadians, the U.S. had to send wave after wave of fresh troops, totaling over 5,000, from Marines to Army Rangers to the famous 82nd Airborne. “
  • “Another heinous aspect of the [Grenada] invasion was the impudence by which the U.S. barred reporters from accompanying the invading forces. It was an act unprecedented in American history. In fact, when the U.S. troops found four American reporters on the island they promptly shipped them off by force. The insulting excuse was that the U.S. “feared for the safety” of the journalists. Again, phony humanitarianism and liberal paternalism were being used to justify arrant aggression. For, of course, it should be up to the journalists themselves whether they should endanger their safety. Does the Reagan Administration think it owns the bodies of the men and women of the press, and is therefore entitled to make such decisions? The real reason why the press was kept out, while the war was going on, is that the Reagan Administration didn’t want any Vietnam-like repetition of the media taking pictures of innocent civilians butchered by U.S. bombs and bullets. As it was, the Reaganite tactics worked beautifully, the embarrassing photos were avoided, and the pictures could be confined to happy Americans (happy to be evacuated from the Grenada war zone, that is) kissing U.S. soil. Far better for the Reaganite image!”
  • “[Reagan] claimed he acted to protect U.S. citizens in Grenada. But there was no evidence whatever that these citizens, mostly students at the St. George’s University School of Medicine, were under any threat, imminent or otherwise. In fact, the head of the medical school, Charles R. Modica, was bitterly critical of the invasion, and pointed out that the only threat to the lives and persons of the students was that posed by the invasion itself.”

Foreign Policy Cambodia

  • “The Reagan Administration’s continued aid and support to Pol Pot in Cambodia, the most genocidal butcher of our time, is more reprehensible but less visible to most Americans. As a result, Pol Pot’s thugs are mobilizing at this very moment on the Thai border to return and take over Cambodia as soon as the Vietnamese pull out, presumably to renew their bizarre mass murders. ”

Foreign Policy – General

  • “Reagan calls for intervention everywhere, in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, and demands the blockade of Cuba in alleged retaliation for the incursion into Afghanistan. And what is more, in the service of this policy of global war and militarism, Reagan would totally ‘unleash’ the FBI and CIA, to do again their foul deeds of harassing political dissent, or invasion of privacy, or espionage and  assassination.”

Economic Policy

  • “Ronald Reagan was swept into office by the conservative movement, whose leader and spokesman he had become. He made a raft of campaign promises to that movement, each and every one of which he has broken egregiously. He raised income taxes rather than lowered them, he brought us $200 billion deficits rather than balancing the budget…he has deregulated nothing, he has not abolished the Departments of Education and Energy, etc…”
  • “Even though [Martin Anderson was] a top Reagan aide…stories began to appear in the press that he ‘lacked clout,’ and pretty soon he was gone. As White House aide in the…Nixon Administration, Marty had plenty of clout, being largely responsible for the end of the draft and the blocking of the pernicious Moynihan Family Assistance Program. But now, despite his characteristic care in picking his spots for battle, Marty indeed lacked clout. Despite what I am sure were his valiant efforts, he failed to persuade Reagan to follow his campaign promises and abolish the infamous draft-registration program. Until near the end, his only accomplishment was to block a Reaganaut proposal for forcing ID cards on every immigrant alien. Then, it was reported that, among the top White House advisers, only Anderson opposed raising income taxes in 1982.”
  • “Another noxious device of the 1982 Reagan budget is to raise taxes but to call them ‘user fees.’ In some cases they are simply taxes outright. Others might not be called taxes, but they have the same effect of shifting money from private producers to the State apparatus, raising charges for services monopolized by the government.”
  • “He is seeking tax increases, to the tune of $32 billion over the next two years, and his tax raises are more pernicious than mere figures indicate.”
  • “Ever since the Eisenhower Era, every time the Republicans win, the effect has been tragic for free-market..institutions” – Murray Rothbard
  • “The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year.”
  • “Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time.”
  • “How about deregulation? Didn’t Ronnie at least deregulate the regulation-ridden economy inherited from the evil Carter? Just the opposite. The outstanding measures of deregulation were all passed by the Carter Administration, and, as is typical of that luckless President, the deregulation was phased in to take effect during the early Reagan years, so that the Gipper could claim the credit. Such was the story with oil and gas deregulation (which the Gipper did advance from September to January of 1981); airline deregulation and the actual abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and deregulation of trucking. That was it. “
  • “The Reagan Administration, supposedly the champion of free trade, has been the most protectionist in American history, raising tariffs, imposing import quotas, and – as another neat bit of creative semantics”