The Fellowship - The Literary Lives of the Inklings – Charles Williams?

There seems to be little question that the dynamics of the Inklings changed when Charles Williams arrived in Oxford during WWII. More than one biographer of the Inklings suggests that the Lewis – Tolkien relationship turned onto the path of estrangement because Williams supplanted Tolkien as being especially close to Lewis, while this may have played a part in this unfortunate development, it was only a part.

I don’t want to write about Charles Williams, and I’ve been thinking about this post for a few days because I’m uncomfortable writing it. Even now, as my fingers touch the keyboard I find myself struggling to break out of the eggshell and into the light. I don’t want to write about Williams because to write about him in the context of the book, The Fellowship – The Literary Lives of the Inklings, means that I have to write that the authors treat Williams in a straightforward manner as they describe his unusual relationships with women who were not his wife. There…I’ve written it. When one is acutely conscious of one’s own sin, sins, and failings, one is (I hope) reluctant to write about the sin, sins, and failings of others.

There are two elements of Charles Williams that should not be glossed over, one is that he engaged in practices that are tainted (a word which may in itself be a gloss) with the occult, the other is that he poured energy and emotion into relationships with women who were not his wife; in at least one case a woman was the wife of another man. And this is what I really want to say, the fact that these relationships were Platonic means nothing, writing “love” letters to women not your wife is as much adultery as engaging in physical acts; not to mention other behavior which is bizarre (a word without gloss). Again, the authors treat these aspects of Williams in a straightforward non-sensational manner, allowing the reader to draw his or her own conclusions – the narrative is painful to read…as it should be.

Williams had friends and admirers who presumably had little or no knowledge of his strange relationships with women, and it seems as if his personality was such that those attracted to him would focus on the attraction and intellectual and kinetic stimulation that Williams radiated – for he was, by all accounts, a man who radiated a presence. Yet, what you saw was not always all that was there, and the question arises as to how much of himself he revealed to the other Inklings; or was it there for them to see if they thought about some of the things that Williams was writing, saying, and doing?

Lewis seemed to consider Williams transparent; Tolkien, however, did not agree with this assessment – perhaps this disagreement over a man whom Lewis thought so much of contributed to the estrangement between Tolkien and Lewis.

When C.S. Lewis wrote The Screwtape Letters it was a painful experience for him. Lewis wrote concerning the process of writing Screwtape, “…though it was easy to twist one’s mind into the diabolical attitude, it was not fun, or not for long. The strain produced a sort of spiritual cramp. The world into which I had to project myself while I spoke through Screwtape was all dust, grit, thirst, and itch. Every trace of beauty, freshness, and geniality had to be excluded. It almost smothered me before I was done. It would have smothered my readers if I had prolonged it.”

Williams’s novels are dark, touching on unseen things in the shadows and in darkness; in light of Lewis’s account of writing Screwtape, which is nowhere near the dark genre in which Williams wrote, I wonder how Williams wrote what he wrote and what effect it had on him as he inhabited the lands of which he wrote. I have read four of Williams’s novels and I have read his Descent of the Dove (though I stopped early on because I thought it unreadable), and I have read his The Figure of Beatrice – which is to say that I think I have a pretty good feel for Williams. While I would recommend Lewis’s Screwtape, I would not recommend Williams’s novels.   

Perhaps the saddest thing about the story of Charles Williams is that his marriage seemed to be getting better just before he suddenly died, a contributing factor to this improvement appears to have been that there were fewer other women for him to direct his attention toward due to his move from London to Oxford during the war. So sad to think that he might have had a wonderful marriage if he had directed his affection and energy to his wife before all others.

I don’t enjoy writing this, but Charles Williams is one of the four principals of The Fellowship – The Literary Lives of the Inklings, and as I wrote in a previous post, this book is for adults.

The Fellowship - The Literary Lives of the Inklings, Review

I recently finished the book, The Fellowship – The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams, by Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski; 2015, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. At 644 pages (512 pages are the main text, the balance contain footnotes, bibliography, index, and acknowledgements), this is the most comprehensive treatment of the Inklings of which I am aware and it is also the best – both in terms of breath and depth. This is a book to be read more than once.

The book begins and ends with the question, “What then, were the Inklings?” If you’d like to know, or if you think you know, or if you’re sure you know the answer – this book is for you. If you don’t care about the answer but you have an interest in Lewis, Tolkien, Barfield or Williams this book is for you. If you think life has a purpose, if you think life has no purpose, if you don’t know whether life has any purpose, this book is for you. If you enjoy well-written biography and want to know the lives of two of the most influential scholars and writers of the 20^th Century, this book is for you. I could continue this “this book is for you” list but you get the message – this is a book rich in narrative detail and yet broad enough to appeal to many people. Philip and Carol Zaleski (husband and wife) have written a masterpiece; Philip is a writer and Carol is a professor of world religions at Smith College.

The subtitle is, The Literary Lives of the Inklings; the book explores the lives of Tolkien, Lewis, Barfield, and Williams using their writing as a compass to guide the narrative – what they wrote was who they were and their writing, and the cross-pollination it produced, was the coal that fed the fires of their meetings and friendships. Sometimes the coal fell out of the stove and produced disagreements with sad results. Fire is dangerous.

This is an adult book, it is not hagiography. While I need not write this for most people, there are those who idealize and idolize others and find it difficult to acknowledge their imperfections…and yes…their sins. How is it that we can so easily forget Romans 3:23? The authors treat difficult personal issues and struggles with respect and decorum and do not engage in tangential psychoanalytics; they keep their eyes on the compass and the compass keeps them on course.

As a work of the rare genre of collective biography the narrative comes together nicely with the tributaries entering the River Inklings in due season. Two of the tributaries (Lewis and Tolkien) are longer than the other two (Barfield and Williams). Other Inklings are picked up along the way, such as Dyson, Havard, Cecil, and Christopher Tolkien. Another Inkling’s life (Warnie Lewis) is intertwined with his brother’s throughout the book. Non-Inklings such as Sister Penelope, Ruth Pitter, Dorothy L. Sayers, and of course Joy Davidman also contribute to the river’s flow.

There is an unhappy irony in the title, The Fellowship; for unlike Tolkien’s, The Lord of the Rings, the Inklings unravel and that which was once intimate becomes distant and in some cases bitter at worst, and bitter sweet at best. In the Fellowship of the Ring, the first volume of Tolkien’s trilogy, the fellowship is broken, but with the exception of Boromir it comes together at the end in the third volume, The Return of the King. In that light perhaps we can anticipate that when our King returns the Inklings will find themselves in the fullness of reconciled fellowship. This is also a book about friendship; I will explore this subject in the book in a future post.

If you know Lewis’s life well you may find it tedious going over much of the same ground early in the book, the journey down the river is worth it; when we leave home on a long trip we have to travel through familiar places to reach the unfamiliar or to revisit places we have not seen in some time.

The authors provide rich context and explanation of the literary, philosophical, religious, and spiritual currents that informed the lives of these men and influenced their relationships – this context in turn helps us understand their lives and writings.

In our day it is difficult to conceive of a group of men (or women) meeting together every Tuesday morning and Thursday night to enjoy each other’s company, to share their creative work, to critique that work, to talk about ideas, to share stories, to encourage one another, and to vigorously disagree with each other – week after week, year after year. Why weren’t they busy, busy, busy like we are? What did they hope to accomplish, if anything? Surely drinking pints of beer at a pub and imbibing whisky in Lewis’s university rooms could lead to no good thing – not to mention the walks they took together, sometimes for hours, other times for days.

No good thing? No The Lord of the Rings, no Mere Christianity, no Space Trilogy, no Narnia…? to name just a few.   Philip and Carol Zaleski have invited us on a journey well worth taking – There and Back Again.

Robert L. Withers, July 26, 2015

Bill Cosby – From Doctor Huxtable to Doctor Toxic

I’ve long known that laughter can be both enjoyable and toxic and that we tend to suspend our critical thinking when we’re laughing; laughing can bring barriers down quicker than chug-a-lugging a Mason Jar of Virginia Recipe. There are things society endorses today that it prohibited fifty years ago; Hollywood had a hand in bringing the barriers down by getting us to laugh at them – we were culpable because we paid for the entertainment, we laughed at the entertainment, and now we are the entertainment. Make something funny or cute or sympathetic and there is a good chance of getting that something accepted. By the same principle take something serious like the Gospel, or sex within marriage, or faithfulness in marriage and caricature it, make jokes about it, belittle it…and again critical thinking is suspended and the floodgates of toxicity open to engulf society.

I haven’t followed Bill Cosby closely but for the most part what I’ve seen I’ve liked. When I was in junior high school I had a record of his stand-up routines, they were clean and I enjoyed them. In fact, until this week there is only one routine of his that I objected to and it was one in which he used the name of Jesus in a profane manner. Again, there may have been other objectionable routines of his that I’m not aware of for I haven’t followed him closely. But my opinion of Mr. Cosby has changed and he has gone from Doctor Huxtable to Doctor Toxic.

You may recall that Doctor Heathcliff Huxtable was his name on The Cosby Show which ran from 1984 – 1992. In the show he portrayed a husband and father who was kind, honest, faithful, with a sense of humor, and wise. In 2004 TV Guide ranked Dr. Huxtable the #1 Dad in TV history. While I didn’t watch many episodes of this series, what I did watch showed a loving husband and wife who loved their children.

With the above as a backdrop, Cosby has a new standup performance titled, “Bill Cosby…far from finished”, that has been released on DVD. The back jacket of the DVD says, “Whether he is talking about friendship, first love, marriage or raising children, the result is people laughing so hard their faces hurt, their sides are splitting, and they can’t breathe. This extended concert event is a must-see for your whole family.”

My recommendation is to keep this DVD away from your family and anyone else you care about. For 95 minutes (I recall one exception when he weaves a story about driving children to school) Cosby cynically attacks marriage by lampooning wives as the equivalent of prison wardens and portraying husbands as prisoners in their own homes and marriages – it is the story of the overbearing wife and the mousey husband who is trained to say, “Yes Dear”. Cosby inserts toxicity with humor, with comedic timing, with signature facial expressions, and by taking isolated things which can and do happen in marriages and making them the motif of marriage – and by doing so he deprecates marriage. Wives are portrayed as domineering tyrants and husbands as bumbling serfs just trying to get along.

The fact that it is Bill Cosby delivering the message makes his delivery a Stealth Bomber; after all, this is the guy who played Doctor Huxtable, this is the guy who makes it a point not to use curse words in his comedy, this is the guy we trust.

A confession: in retrospect I wish he had started his routine with a few curse words because then we would have turned the DVD off…as it was we watched the entire thing…my excuse is that I thought it would surely get better – poor excuse. Yes, this is a confession – I was a fool to watch the entire thing but I did. I kept thinking, “What message is this sending to young people in the audience? What message is this sending to women? What does this say about marriage?”

So you see I was watching somewhat critically, but as I hope you also see I agreed to be sucked into the morass, I made the decision to keep watching – I was a fool. Don’t be a fool with me.

The experience is interesting to me on a few fronts; one is that it shows how laughter can overcome critical thinking and how being favorably predisposed to someone can entice us to drop our guards. Another thing about the experience is that it is a sober reminder to me that I must never suspend critical thinking and that when I sense something is awry that I need to deal with it then…not later…because the more one sips from the Mason Jar of Virginia Recipe the easier each subsequent sip is to take…and before you know it the entire jar is empty and you don’t know where you are or how you got there.

The Scriptures tell us to gird up the loins of our minds and be sober; how we use our minds matters; thoughts reproduce and reproduce and then reproduce some more – what thoughts are our minds generating, what images, what attitudes? I want to think sober thoughts in line with reality, corresponding to God’s truth and God’s word – I don’t want to be drunk on the world’s toxicity. 

Here’s another confession…since I’m laying this all out in public…watching this was not honoring to my wife Vickie…and that, my friends, was sinful and stupid and I’m sorry I wasn’t enough of a husband not to turn the wretched thing off. Shame on me.

Now…in all love and gentleness may I say…don’t let it be shame on you.

Out of My Bone – Book Review (Part 2)

Anyone contemplating reading Out of My Bone, who has not read Lyle Dorsett’s biography of Davidman, And God Came In: The Extraordinary Story of Joy Davidman, might want to consider reading the biography before reading the letters. The biography will provide context for the letters; this is particularly helpful since the range of correspondence in Out of My Bone is limited.

Davidman, who was born in 1915, had a remarkable intellect, graduating from Hunter College in 1934 and then from Columbia University with a MA in 1935 (she graduated from high school when 14). Considering that she died when 45, I can’t help wondering “what might have been” had she lived longer; what books and essays might she have written, what might her literary and intellectual and spiritual partnership with C.S. Lewis have looked like, and how might have she continued to grow in her relationship with Jesus Christ?

One of Davidman’s letters that struck me was written to Harold Harwell Lewis (dated June 7, 1943 – no relation to C.S. Lewis) in her capacity as an associate editor of New Masses, the magazine of the Communist Party of the United States.   It begins: “Dear H. H. Lewis, I’ve been looking over some of your poems, and I’ve been impressed with the broadening scope of your work…You are certainly growing as a poet.”

Well into the letter Davidman writes, “Another way in which your work is getting above the heads of the audience is in its diction…Our task is to bring poetry back to spoken English; a good rule is to use no expression in poetry that you can’t imagine yourself using in conversation.”

“When you show that you know more than your audience, it should only be something that your audience really needs and wants to learn. You have another trick of inventing words, using hyphens to create what are known as neologisms – horrible things; and using a jawbreaker where a simple one-syllabled word will do.”

“Not only do big words look grotesque; they are also limp and colorless, because they have no associations. A reader will get a mental picture when you say tulip tree, but if you call it Liriodendron tulipifera you will leave him blank. Or imagine using “maternal progenitor” for mother.”

Her letter to H.H. Lewis covers six pages in Out of My Bone and I’m going to quote from it more in the next post; consider the time and thought Davidman is putting into encouraging and critiquing her correspondent, this is quite the investment – and one which Davidman is willing to make with those who “have an ear to hear” what she has to say. Unlike the passive communication style that our 21^st century society is perfecting, Joy Davidman gets to the point, expands the point, and then gets to the next point without apology or without using phrases like in my opinion.

Her above-quoted advice is good for writers and speakers today, even writers of emails. I recall once, in Boston, hearing a seminary professor speak at a breakfast of business and professional people and cringing at his theological jargon – even if his audience could deduce the meaning of the jargon the process of deduction would have distracted it from following the speaker’s line of thought, it would have been akin to taking the wrong exit ramp from an interstate highway and then figuring out how to get back on the highway.

In terms of emails, how often have I read an email from someone trying to impress readers and thereby coming across unnaturally, using words that they would never use in normal conversation – and sometimes using words whose meanings they sadly do not know.

I like words, and I like increasing my vocabulary, and I like using different words, including words that aren’t used very often (because if I use them I’ll learn them) – and therein lies the danger if I forget my audience and forget the message – the goal in communication (unless your goal is subterfuge) is for the listener or reader to see what you’re writing or saying – it is incumbent on the one doing the writing or speaking to do it well – and that means to do it with the audience in mind.

There are writers and speakers that are Gnostic in the sense that they portray an air of mystery and secrecy; follow them to become initiated into hidden wisdom and knowledge; use their jargon and “voice” to enter the inner circle of acceptance and ascendency. We see this in art, we see it in religion, we see it in academia, we see it in literature; I suppose we see it just about everywhere – why I even see it in business with buzz words and phrases and in thinking that often has no foundation and that is not logical. We think fancy words indicate learning, knowledge and wisdom – too often they indicate shallowness and egotism. Davidman could see through façade, some people appreciated that and some didn’t. I think Jesus probably would have said to her, “Behold an Israelite, in whom is no guile.”

To be continued…

Out of My Bone – Book Review (Part 1)

I just finished reading Out of My Bone – The Letters of Joy Davidman, edited by Don W. King, Eerdmans, 2009. There is a particular challenge in reading this collection in that there are two distinct sections of letters, the first section covers pages 1 – 159; the second section pages 160 – 358. The letters in the first section are dated from August 18, 1936 to October 29, 1953; the letters in the second section cover November 14, 1953 through July 2, 1960 – Joy Davidman Gresham Lewis died on July 13, 1960.

The challenge comes in the second section, for the vast majority of the letters are to William (Bill) Gresham, her first husband, and their recurring theme is his lack of financial support for Joy and their two sons, David and Douglas. After Joy’s marriage to C.S. Lewis, on April 23, 1956, the focus on money shifts to the support of the two boys and is not as pronounced as prior to her marriage to Lewis; this is because Lewis has taken up the financial slack; in fact previous to their marriage Lewis was already helping Joy financially. Here are some snippets from her letters to Gresham:

“Check for $25 arrived. How long is Valley Forge going to last?” March 8, 1954.

“Why no, all is not well with me and the boys. How do you expect it to be, on five-dollar checks?” March 25, 1954.

“I supposed I’m a fool to go on being patient; any other woman would go to court.” January 14, 1955.

“Gee thanks; this month, for once you’re less than $100.00 behind!” March 25, 1955.

“You know, I get tired of labouring the obvious; you know as well as I do that $20 a week isn’t enough for me to bring up two boys on even in England.” November 28, 1955.

“Same old inflexible – ignore everything I say and go on paying as little as you please.” March 14, 1956.

The challenge in reading the second section is at least two-fold; firstly it is repetitiously dreary, with the monotony only breaking somewhat after her marriage to Lewis. Secondly, because her letters to Gresham dominate the second section, the reader has to remind himself that he is only reading a facet of Joy Davidman’s life through these letters – there was much more to this woman during these years than is reflected in the letters. Having said that, there can be little doubt in reading her letters to Gresham how finances influenced her activities and her health (she couldn't afford a balanced diet); they also restricted her ability to engage in activities that might have opened up opportunities for writing and speaking. In her letters we see a gifted thinker and author reduced to typing manuscripts for others in order to make ends meet.

One thing that comes through clearly in her letters is her love for her boys and her determination that they have educational opportunities and the best life possible under reduced financial circumstances. She writes to Gresham as a mother first and a soon-to-be former wife (and then former wife) second. She also shows genuine concern for Gresham and his new wife, her cousin Renee; Bill and Renee had an affair that was a catalyst in Joy and Bill’s divorce.

As difficult as the second section of her letters can be to work through, the reader will certainly sense that he has walked with Davidman through the peaks and valleys of life and will take special delight in Joy finding joy and peace in her marriage with Lewis…it was all too brief…but it was also a time of beauty for them both.

Rush Revere and the First Thanksgiving; or - Why Bother with the Truth?

Robert Tracy McKenzie, professor and chair of the Department of History at Wheaton College, has written two pieces on his blog about Rush Limbaugh's recent book on the First Thanksgiving, you can read his Faith and History blog here http://faithandamericanhistory.wordpress.com/

What I find particularly interesting is McKenzie's discussion of people not caring about whether something is true or not as long as they like what they're reading. He surveys positive comments on the Limbaugh book on Amazon.com and notes that the vast majority make no mention of whether or not the book is true and factual - the book not only has errors but is misleading as it seeks to advance an agenda that the Pilgrims would not have recognized. 

I'm currently reading Peter Kreeft's, Heaven, the Heart's Deepest Longing, and I just happen to be at a place where Kreeft is discussing what McKenzie is writing about - that people don't ask whether something is true when they hear it or read it - if they like it and it makes them feel good then that is good enough. I see this all the time; I see it in the church, I see it in business, I see it in politics, I see it in society. Perhaps this subjective toxicity is one reason why the church no longer views the Bible as containing commandments that must be obeyed and precepts and principles that must be conformed to and propositional truth that must be either accepted or rejected - the truth or falsehood of what we read or hear no longer matters, it is all about how we feel about what we read or hear.

C.S. Lewis wrote that he would believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ whether or not it benefited him personally because the Gospel is true. That is strange to our thinking because we've been taught first and foremost to ask, "What's in it for me?" To Lewis "Is it true?" was the first question, to us the first questions are "How do I feel about this? What's in it for me? Does it meet my needs?" 

Last week the Tuesday-morning small group that I'm in looked at Paul's visit to Berea in Acts 17:10 - 15. Luke writes that the Bereans examined the Scriptures daily to see whether these things [Paul's teaching] were so. That's a novel idea in 2013, to actually read the Bible, to submit to the Bible, and to ask whether something is true before we ask anything else. As Kreeft writes, "True does not mean 'true to me', but 'I want to know what this truth means to me'.

Varian's War

Vickie and I watched Varian's War a few days ago. It is a 2001 Made-for-TV movie about Varian Fry, an American who saved primarily Jewish intellectuals and artists from Vichy France in the early days of WWII; prior to America's entrance into the war. Please note, I haven't taken the time to research the real Varian Fry - the movie is based on a true story, that much I know, and the little I have read confirms the storyline. This morning at breakfast Vickie talked about being uncomfortable with the movie, and by extension with the true story - for did you note that Varian Fry was saving artists and intellectuals?

The argument in the movie for saving artists, writers, and intellectuals was that they represented cultural hope for the future as well as being a group of people who could articulate Nazi atrocities to the outside world. This raises the question, "Are some people more valuable than other people?" The answer in 2011 from the general public is usually, "Yes. Some people are more valuable than others based on their contributions to society."

To the film's credit it shows a number of people seeking asylum from Fry and his associates who are turned away because they are average moms and dads and kids - they are not culturally special. The film does not gloss over the choices made by Fry - but I wonder if the contemporary viewer has any philosophical angst about turning away normal people in favor of special people? I suspect there is emotional angst during one prolonged scene of people being turned away to likely face death in concentration camps, but once that scene has passed I think it's probably business as usual for most viewers.

How many older people have I known who think they have no value to family, friends and society? Many. What does it say about our society when that thinking is prevalent? We are valued in terms of our use, of our utilitarian contribution to the greater welfare of the state and society. We are machines and when we start rusting out it is time to dispose of us. 

As Vickie discussed the film with me an irony hit me square in the face; Varian Fry was doing much the same thing Hitler was doing - he was judging between people based on something other than people being created in the image of God; while Hitler was judging in racial terms, Fry was judging in intellectual terms - both judgments meant life or death. I am not saying that Fry and Hitler were identical, I'm not saying that Fry was close, I'm not saying that Fry was evil as Hitler was; but I am saying that underlying Fry's actions was an utilitarian view of men and woman and children that held that social contribution is what matters as opposed to intrinsic worth.  

Putting Words in the Mouth of God

My friend Stan Bohall raises a sobering point about the use of theophany in Christian literature - particularly as it relates to The Shack.

He begins with:

Since writing a recent blog about The Shack, I have read several reviews including one by Katherine Jeffrey in the January/February 2010 issue of Books&Culture titled "I Am Not Who You Think I Am." Here is a statement from the review that struck a chord with me: "Theophany is strictly circumscribed in Christian literary tradition." That means that, throughout Christian history, authors have not been allowed to include speeches by God in literary works. Jeffrey goes on to discuss a few minor exceptions to that rule in Medieval literature and to bring to light some egregious violations in recent films such as O, God!, Dogma and Evan Almighty.

You can read the rest here - go to October 14.

http://quest-min.blogspot.com

The Shack or The Cross?

I have a friend reading The Shack who is looking for reviews. A while back I wrote a piece on The Shack and have posted it on my CompassDynamics website; however, I'm also putting it here just in case anyone is interested.

Will the World End in 2012?: A Christian Guide to the Question Everyone's Asking

The other day I went into a Lifeway bookstore to rest my eyes from the computer at work and to stretch my legs; to just get out of the office for a few minutes. As I began my browsing jog around the store the first rack of books consisted of the latest and greatest releases, and on the top shelf of the latest and greatest releases was a book with the above title by Raymond Hundley.

The first thing that struck me was that I wasn’t aware everyone was asking “"the Question.” Perhaps the editors at publisher Thomas Nelson failed in their PR campaign?

Can someone tell me what possible motive there is in such a title other than raw money? There is no intellectual or moral or Christian honesty in that title. That is exactly the type of hype I’d expect from Oprah or General Motors, or Abercrombie and Fitch – I’m not sure that Hugh Heffner ever used such hype – though to satisfy your curiosity I’m not speaking from personal experience on that one.

And if raw money is the motive, and I can think of no other motive for the title is indeed a patent lie designed to produce sales – then we have Thomas Nelson engaging in what is sometimes referred to as one of the oldest professions known to man – prostitution. However, this is an insult to prostitutes because I believe it likely that most prostitutes engage in their vocational activity in order to support themselves, Thomas Nelson, on the other hand, isn’t likely to starve or be homeless tomorrow if their executives engage in a modicum of honesty and deportment.

Now gentle reader, if you are offended by my comparison of Thomas Nelson with prostitution (and Thomas Nelson has plenty of company in the world of “Christian” publishing) then may I ask “why”? What is the nature and source of your offense? Is it that I invoke unpleasant images of the type that God uses in Ezekiel Chapter 23? Or is it that there is harlotry in “Christian” (and I use the term in its broadest application) publishing and we ourselves have become too promiscuous to sense anything amiss?

And what of Lifeway bookstore? Is there no discernment and integrity in prominently displaying a title worthy of Oprah, the New Age, or the latest Hollywood release?

How can a publisher publish Bibles on one press run and engage in deceptive titles the next? How can a bookstore have Bibles in one aisle and place – front and center – such nonsense as “The Question Everyone Is Asking” as you walk through its door? (When is the last time you went into a “Christian” bookstore and the first thing you saw were Bibles?)

I suspect that, volume per volume, there is more hype in the form of self-centered and self-help marketing, and in creating “questions that everyone is asking” in “Christian” publishing than in general publishing. I suspect there is more literary integrity in general publishing than in so-called Christian publishing. And I’m pretty certain that the atmosphere in Borders or Barnes and Noble is, by and large, a bit more healthy than it is in Lifeway, Family Christian Bookstore, and their competitors, because at least in Barnes and Noble and Borders the selling of sheep and doves and religious money changing is relegated to one or two aisles – the aisles containing “Christian” books.

To End All Wars – Book and Movie, Part II

To End All Wars is rated “R” for violence and language. I seldom view a R-rated movie because I don’t want the mind pollution – this is not about others who watch R-rated movies, this is about me (and Vickie). I don’t want the language, violence, or sexual content pollution – to name the three big pollutants.

I did not find any language or violence in To End All Wars that I thought gratuitous; as mentioned in yesterday’s post the historical violence was downplayed. I imagine the language was also downplayed, when coarse language was used I never felt it was being used to draw attention to itself but rather that it was relevant to the scene.

My friend David said in effect, “This is the movie The Passion set in WWII.” I thought that a good comparison. One difference between the two movies is that To End All Wars releases its tension throughout the movie whereas, as I recall, while The Passion has flashbacks that the tension and violence are pretty much unrelenting. Of course when the tension is released in To End All Wars you find yourself wondering when the next challenge or tragedy will occur, but there is such a wonderful element of hope that I found myself experiencing joy at certain junctures in the movie – which was not my experience throughout The Passion. 

This is not a movie to be watched for entertainment; it is a movie to be explored and discussed. It is not a war movie; it is a movie set in the cruelty of war and within a clash of cultures. The latter element is applicable in our own day when we hear much about culture wars, both within and without our nation. Ernest Gordon and his companions not only learned the mercy of Christ, they learned to understand, to some degree, the warrior culture of the Japanese which in turn helped them communicate with their captors.

The sacrificial love of Christ portrayed in this movie is something we would do well to remember when engaging in political discourse, in our treatment of our neighbors and coworkers, in all of our heart attitudes towards others. It is something that can inform our approach to cultures different from our Western culture and within our Western culture.

To End All Wars is ultimately about Christ forgiving and loving us and us forgiving and loving others through Christ, which leads to the end of all wars - both within ourselves and towards others. Isn’t this what we would expect from the Prince of Peace?

To End All Wars – Book and Movie, Part I

A couple of weeks ago my friend David invited me to watch the movie, To End All Wars, based on a book by the same title. When the book was first published in the US in 1963 the title was, Through the Valley of the River Kwai; and in 1965 it’s UK release was, Miracle on the River Kwai. The first two titles speak to the historical setting of the book, the building of the “Railroad of Death” by Allied Prisoners of war and enslaved civilians in Indo-China in WWII.

The book is by Ernest Gordon and is an autobiographical account of his experience as a prisoner of war. The movie, released in 2001, closely follows the book in terms of content and message. I’m not going to write about the cast of the movie or other movie “facts”, those are accessible online. What I do want to do is share some thoughts about the interplay of the book and movie and the message from both.

Unlike the fictional Bridge Over The River Kwai and the book upon which it was based, the book To End All Wars is true and the movie is based on the truth of the book. There is what I suppose is termed artistic license in the movie and because of this I think it is vital that if you see the movie that you also read the book. Because I love history I’m pretty critical when I see historical inaccuracies in a movie, but in this instance I’m not troubled by the movie.

For one thing, the historical milieu is accurate – if anything the cruelty to which Allied prisoners of war were subjected is downplayed, but neither is it ignored for it is vital to the story, a story not just about Ernest Gordon, but a story about the mercy and grace of God in the lives of men who had not only lost hope, they had lost their humanity.

One Christian movie reviewer thought the movie’s Christian message over-the-top for non-Christians. There are two reasons I disagree with the reviewer. The first is that the sacrificial love portrayed in the movie is so unlike anything we are accustomed to, whether we are Christians or not, that it challenge’s all of us. There is nothing sugary sweet about the portrayal of this love and it is not a love that is without tension. The production values, unlike most films with an overt Christian message, are high – supporting the script by Brian Godawa rather than detracting from it.

The second reason I disagree with the reviewer is that most of the events in the movie have a factual basis in the book, therefore “it is what it is.” That is, the content of most of the events actually happened – deal with it. This is one reason why I say, “If you see the movie make sure you read the book.” What Christ did in the lives of these men is something that stretches the imagination. If the movie were fictional I might agree with the reviewer; but it isn’t – the story is remarkable.