Christians and Literature – 10 Questions for Michael Plato

Here are 10 questions I posed to Michael Plato about literature.


1. Can you give a brief summary of where you live, your educational background, what you do for a living, what church you attend, and the religious tradition you stand in?

I live in downtown Toronto (Little Italy), I have a BA in Literary Studies and Philosophy and an MA in Popular Culture, I am a professor of English and Popular Culture at Seneca College, and I attend New City Baptist (Reformed Baptist).


2. How has your early upbringing shaped your view and use of literature now?

Was surrounded by people who read and collected old and rare books. Learned that older books were often the better books.


3. Are there any people who, in your adult life, have encouraged you to encounter literature in a deeper or more passionate way. If so, who? (they can people you know personally or not)

Northrop Frye, Harold Bloom, Robertson Davies, my High School Chemistry teacher!


4. What authors/works would you re-read if you had a month-long sabbatical to dedicate to reading?

Don Quixote, Middlemarch, Remembrance of Things Past (Proust), Portrait of a Lady, the works of Milton


5. Who are your favorite authors or characters portrayed in literature? (if any of them have substantially changed you, list how briefly)

Fav authors: Cervantes, Milton, Evelyn Waugh, Robertson Davies, the Brontes, Charles Dickens, Thomas Mann, G.K. Chesterton, Henry James.

Fav Characters: Don Quixote, Odysseus, Hans Castorp (Magic Mountain).


6. Should Christians read more literature? What are the benefits to that? What are some cautions you would share?

Yes, but don’t like the term “benefits” when describing literature. You might as well ask: what are the benefits of having family or friends?  I see this in the same category (though humans obviously matter more than books). Cautions? Don’t read bad books. A good indicator that a book is bad is if it appeared on the Oprah Book Club.


7. To what degree is reading communal for you? (ie. Are you more solitary? Do you share in any way with your friends? Are you in reading groups?)

Completely solitary. Have never been part of a reading group, unless literature classes are counted as such.


8. What are some methods or principles you use to decide what you will and won’t read?

Pure whimsy. Sometimes recommendations, more often the result of perusing bookshops and libraries.


9. What literary works or authors could be of the greatest value to the church if they were read more? Why?

Brideshead Revisited – it is the cleverest Christian apologetic ever written.

John Donne and John Milton – for their nuanced reflection on the spiritual and superb imagination

Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre – to be aware of thoughtful and truly honest atheists


10. Is there anything else you’d like to mention?

Books should always be ready at hand in the home, especially if there are children. One does not have to enforce reading if it is already a part of the environment.

One Thousand Thoughts About Church…#737

“[The church] is a place full to this purpose, where all believers, in regard of their union with the head, and with one another, are set forth as one body, governed under one head, by one spirit, by which they increase and grow up, till they come to such a kind of unity as is among the divine persons.” – Thomas Manton

Christians and Literature – 10 Questions for Mark Nenadov

I’m pleased to announce that I am starting a series called “Christian and Literature – 10 Questions”, in which I will be asking various Christians who love literature some questions. To kick off the series, which should span November and December, I will post my own answers to the questions that I posed to others.


1. Can you give a brief summary of where you live, your educational background, what you do for a living, what church you attend, and the religious tradition you stand in?

I work as a programmer and have an IT-related college diploma. I’m a member of Grace Baptist Church of Essex and in regard to religious tradition I am a Reformed Baptist.


2. How has your early upbringing shaped your view and use of literature now?

My family didn’t have any particular “literary”  proclivities to speak of, though I was given freedom to pursue eclectic reading interests. Books such as Robinson Crusoe, Shakespeare’s complete works, and Huckleberry Finn were on our shelves but I mainly read non fiction as a kid. I learned to love books fairly early on, but I’d say that anything amounting to a “passion” for literature didn’t come until well after college. I became a Christian between highschool and college, and there are only two pieces of teen/adult fiction in my pre-college days that are at all memorable to me: 1984 by George Orwell and Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe.


3. Are there any people who, in your adult life, have encouraged you to encounter literature in a deeper or more passionate way. If so, who? (they can people you know personally or not)

1. I doubt he even remembers it, but a friend’s quite random recommendation of Brothers Karamazov was very important in introducing me to literature in general and the Russian writers in particular.

2. Many bloggers, speakers, writers, etc. have seeped into my thinking gradually, both directly about literature and indirectly through other topics. In this list I would include:  O.S. Guinness, Olga Lukmanova, various other L’Abri speakers, Alan Jacobs, Peter Leithart, Harold Bloom, George Grant, Tony Reinke, Mark Horne, Brian Godawa, Michael Coren, Goran Dragojlovic, Ralph Smith, Peter Leithart, and my friend Ian Clary..

3. I should also point out that I’ve been richly blessed by having my niece Grace introduce me to Tolkien.


4 What authors/works would you re-read if you had a month-long sabbatical to dedicate to reading?

Where do I begin? I think the immediately obvious one would be to re-read Brothers Karamazov.  And then maybe I would re-read a few of the following: The Hobbit, 1984, Robinson Crusoe, The Master and Maragrita.


5. Who are your favorite authors or characters portrayed in literature? (if any of them have substantially changed you, list how briefly)

I’m not good at favorites, but here’s an attempt:

Tier one:  P.G. Wodehouse and his Bertie/Jeeves/Psmith (made me less gloomy and got me through rough days), Mark Twain (taught me how to laugh at myself), Dostoevsky and esp. the Karamazov brother characters (helped me understand humanity, depravity, and myself in a richer measure), Orwell’s 1984 (changed the way I see the world),  A.C. Doyle and Holmes/Watson (can’t really explain why), George MacDonald’s Hector and Annie in Far Above Rubies has impacted my view of romance, and a whole class of adversarial characters that portray evil like Tolkien’s Morgoth or Bunyans characters or Lewis’  Screwtape letters or Guinness’ Gravedigger Files or some Shakespeare characters (captured my imagination in portraying evil).

Tier two:  Dafoe’s Robinson Crusoe (can’t really explain why–captured me at a young age), Robert Heinlein, Wendell Berry, Albert Camus, Chesterton, Philip Roth, Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov,Ivan Turgenev, Mikhail Bulgakov, and Robert Service.


6. Should Christians read more literature? What are the benefits to that? What are some cautions you would share?

The vast majority of us don’t read enough–so probably you should read more. That said, you need to keep first things first and how much you actually read depends on your gifts, calling, free time, responsibilities, energy, and preferences.

I will just pick a few benefits: Increased literacy to be used in other fields; pleasure; increased ability to understand other people; stories can reach our hearts in ways that propositions can’t; it gives us a restful diversion from our other duties; it can be a shared experience with others as you read and talk about literature.

Avoid underestimating the (positive or negative) impact of literature. We need to keep in mind that when we read we are keeping company and be aware of how that company is affecting us.  This is complex and is usually not a simple matter of good/evil.  Stories are usually too complex to be stuffed in one or the other box. It tends to be very situational, and we can’t just evaluate the books themselves, but also how we react to them. And remember, you only have limited time to read (per day and per lifetime!)


7. To what degree is reading communal for you? (ie. Are you more solitary? Do you share in any way with your friends? Are you in reading groups?)

I’ve been in a couple reading groups. In theory I see reading as communal, but in practice I am more solitary than I wish to be.  I don’t see what I read as a private matter,though. I try to share my reading with others through personal conversations, reviews, and various book sites (ie. Library Thing, now Good Reads).  I make it a point to post what I’ve read on my blog and also share some thoughts on my goals in reading. I find that leads to in-person conversations.  In terms of the act of reading, I mainly do that alone (with the exception of reading the Bible together with my wife). Now, approaching fatherhood, I imagine I will read in groups of at least two more often!


8. What are some methods or principles you use to decide what you will and won’t read?

Generally, I have a loosely held to plan that includes what broad areas I’m interested in, and together with my mood at the time–I determine what to read.


9. What literary works or authors could be of the greatest value to the church if they were read more? Why?

A. It may be a tad cliché, but Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov. It would help us (and the people we help) wrestle with the big questions of life. B. Mark Twain and P.G. Wodehouse, would go a long way in loosening us up and helping us to be more free to laugh at ourselves. It’s hard to take yourself too seriously after a healthy dose of Twain and Wodehouse. And, let me be clear, we too often take ourselves too seriously! C. The fantastic portrayals of enemies and evil in the works I cited earlier by Tolkien, Lewis, Guinness, Shakespeare, Bunyan, etc., would help us understand our enemy better and would be profitable in the struggle. I think we all have a pretty good theological understanding of Satan’s work, but I think for many people some of these stories could help people to see it on more concrete terms.

I feel, as a general principle, books that stretch the church’s imagination, make them laugh, improve their understanding of good and evil, challenge them to think through things and  increase empathy, etc. are all pretty valuable!


10. Is there anything else you’d like to mention?

Don’t let intimidation spoil your reading experience–be open to recommendations  but take them with a grain of salt. Don’t be enslaved to recommendations and don’t be afraid to go below (or above) the level of reading that others think you should be at. Also, some of the most important points in fiction can be subtle and you’ll miss them if you are looking for something too explicitly. Take up and read, and don’t take it (or yourself) too seriously! You might miss something if you are tensely expecting something profound.

Monstrous Stupidity!

In preparing for a Sunday School lesson, I came across this gem from John Gill:

  • “What remains of the tree, that is not consumed by making a fire to warm with, by heating the oven to bake bread with, and by using it in the kitchen to roast meat with, this is made an image of, and being graved and carved, is called a god, and worshipped; though it is of the same matter, and of the same nature, with that which was used for warming, baking, and roasting…he bows unto it, falls down on his knees, and spreads out his hands, and lifts them up, and uses all the gestures of adoration; yea, makes a formal address in prayer and supplication, and particularly requests that he would deliver him from present danger and distresses, of whatsoever kind he was attended with; declaring at the same time he was his god, in whom he trusted, and from whom he expected relief and help. Monstrous stupidity!” – John Gill on Isaiah 44:17

Out And About 11/17/2011 #2

Humor

  • The Daily Show has an absolutely brilliant segment on Occupy Wall Street Divided. Absolutely hilarious. The best part, in my opinion is when the guy considers his iPad personal property rather than private property. The video is not available from Canada, but a version going around on facebook does play in Canada.

Child Birth

Politics

  • According to the Boston Globe, when Mitt Romney left the Massachusetts governors office to run for president last time, Romney’s aids purchased 17 of their state-issued hard drives and wiped away all e-mails off the server, even though municipal employees are required by law to keep e-mails for at least two years even if they do not have any evidential or informational value.
  • Lawrence Vance has posted a review of Wayne Grudem’s “Politics According to the Bible”.

Out And About 11/17/2011

Theology

Science

Foreign Policy

The Economics of Literature

Writing

Booklog (November 13 – November 16, 2011)

In this period I’ve completed:

This places the running total for books(*)  completed in 2011 at 92.

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

Review of “Fyodor Dostoevsky” by Peter Leithart

Fyodor Dostoevsky by Peter Leithart.

For many of us, discovering the towering Fyodor Dostoevsky is a major life-event. In this book Peter Leithart gently leads the reader through dialogs that illuminate Dostoevsky’s life. One might say it is fictional, but the portrait built in these pages is certainly not fictional.

Being a fan of Dostoevsky’s work and having enjoyed a number of Peter Leithart’s writings, I’ve come to this book with a good deal  of enthusiasm. It did not let me down. I can’t say it was the way I expected, but let me clearly say it was highly enjoyable. With Leithart as the author, I should have expected some surprises. What I really enjoyed this book is the imaginative way of directing attention to the crucial aspects of Dostoevsky’s life. It really drew me to the subject in a way that a biography normally doesn’t. The glances one gets are brief and fleeting, but they are rich and vivid. Especially noteworthy are the glances of Fyodor’s childhood, his tensions with Turgenev, his interaction with his wife, and the portrayal of the fleeting last moments of his life.

While I recommend this book for everyone, I do wish it was longer. For this reason, people who want a brief taste of Dosteovsky and  encouragement to dig deeper will find this book the most satisfying. If, however,you feel you are already well acquainted with Dostoevsky, don’t dismiss this book too soon, it is likely to shed additional light. Kudos to Peter for a wonderful biography of a great writer.

(Disclosure: I received this book for free as a review copy through the BookSneeze.com program. Apparently the FTC requires this disclaimer. The opinions I’ve expressed are fiercely independent. They gave me the book with the understanding that I would give an honest review. I would refuse to enter any arrangement where I wasn’t free to tear a book to shreds–after all, negative reviews are more fun. )

Some Common Sense on all this Iran hype

Whether or not you agree with each point or emphasis, in a recent article Eric Margolis makes some important points that should be factored in as we consider the Iran issue.

Here are some of these basic points extracted (only the items in quotes are Eric’s direct words):

  1. There is nothing fundamentally new in the IAEA report, its the same stuff that has been talked about for a long time. No new case for war with Iran here..
  2. “In 1992, Natanyahu claimed Iran would have nuclear weapons in 3-5 years. Shimon Peres, now Israel’s president, insisted Iran would have nukes by 1999. In 1995, the New York Times claimed Iran was only 5 years from nuclear weapons. In 1998, US Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld claimed Iran was fielding a nuclear-armed ICBM that could hit the United States……”  Is Iran that incompetent that, had they wanted nuclear weapons, they wouldn’t have been able to develop them by now? If they are that incompetent, then what are we worrying about?….South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan, and Switzerland could all produce a nuclear device within six months of making the decision to do so…..If Iran really wanted nuclear weapons 20 years ago, why on earth has it taken so long to develop a 1940’s technology?”
  3. Why did “Ali Khamenei, who is also commander of Iran’s armed forces, [issue] a fatwa, or religious decree, banning nuclear weapons”?
  4. If Iran is an existential threat to Israel, then the U.S. and Israel are even more of an existential threat to Iran.
    1. “In 1953, US and British intelligence overthrew Iran’s democratic leader…the US and Britain got Saddam, Hussein’s Iraq to invade Iran….After eight years of bloody trench warfare, in which Iraq was financed and armed by the western powers and their Arab oil allies, Iran suffered at least 500,000 casualties. Iran’s western cities were laid waste. Iraq showered poison and burning gas on the Iranians that was supplied by the western powers.”
    2. “Last week, Israel launched a new missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere in Iran and Pakistan. Israel’s German-supplied submarines lie off Iran’s coast, ready to launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.”
  5. “The big nuclear powers – the US, Russia, China, Britain, France – are in violation of the 1995 UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty that mandated eliminating all nuclear weapons within five years.” How can they complain about Iran?

Foreign Affairs article on GOP Foreign Policy

In an otherwise dull and “status-quo supporting” article on the recent GOP debate in light of foreign policy, James Lindsay has made some astute observations about the mainstream GOP stature on Foreign Policy (observations that I’ve shared for several years). The article, featured in Foreign Affairs, says that “most of the GOP presidential candidates are internationalists intent on pursuing an activist foreign policy”.

For all their attempts to pose as fresh air compared to Obama and portray him as a “softie”, he is fundamentally more like them than they will admit and they are more like him than he will admit.

The most striking statement to me, is this (which speaks of the general GOP consensus, excluding Ron Paul of course):

  • each GOP candidate shares far more of Obama’s worldview than he or she would care to admit. With the exception of climate change — a topic even the White House seldom mentions these days — the president and his critics all see the same dangers and threats: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and the rise of China. The GOP candidates disagree with the president on the tactics of how to advance America’s interests in the world, not what those interests are.”

I would just add that even the tactical differences are rarely differences of fundamental principle. The tactical differences between Obama and his mainstream Republican rivals can be often explained, rather than by principle, but different advisors, or trying to appeal to different demographics, different wording, or just cultural differences.

Though at this time it is the cool thing on the Right to distinguish oneself from Barack Obama, let’s be clear–listen carefully to the front runners, and don’t be fooled by exaggerated attempts to emphasize antithesis. As much as you can ignore the cultural differences, and the differences in wording, and I think you will find that that on core foreign policy values Cain, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, etc. share a lot of common ground with Obama.

One Thousand Thoughts About Church…#741

“In public prayer, one of the worshippers leads the service, speaking audibly, as Solomon did at the dedication of the temple, and the rest unite in heart in the devotions and supplications. The leading part in the service may be performed by the ministers of the word….But, though the ministers of the word may, in general, most advantageously lead in public prayer, other male members of the church may do it with propriety and benefit. ‘I will that men pray everywhere.’ The word rendered ‘men,’ properly denotes persons of the male sex, and is distinguished from ‘the women’ mentioned in the next verse. The intimation plainly made, is, that females are not expected to lead in public prayer. This accords with the words of Paul: ‘It is shame for women to speak in the church,’ or public assembly.” – J.L. Dagg