Category Archives: Religion

‘The Bishop’s Wife,’ by Robert Nathan

He discovered the wealthy lady in a small house near the river, furnished in the style of the last century, which is to say that everything was uncomfortable. She received the archdeacon in her library, in which there still remained a few books.

I approached Robert Nathan’s The Bishop’s Wife with some hesitation. Fond as I am of Nathan, he was a Jewish writer, and I wasn’t looking forward to finding out how he dealt with the Christian church. In the event, it was indeed a little awkward, but that wasn’t the only awkwardness I experienced with this story.

The Bishop’s Wife was made into a movie in 1947, starring David Niven (as the bishop), Cary Grant (as the angel), and Loretta Young. It’s a minor Christmas classic, not as popular as “It’s a Wonderful Life,” but like the Capra movie it features Christmas and an angel. The movie isn’t bad; I was surprised to discover how far it veers from the book at the end.

Bishop Henry Brougham is a dignified, earnest churchman (one assumes he’s Episcopalian, but references to Luther and the Augsburg Confession suggest to me he might be Lutheran). His great vision is to promote the Christian home, but he believes (for some reason) that the way to nurture good homes is to build a cathedral. The challenge of raising funds is daunting to him, so he prays to God for an archdeacon gifted in fundraising. That’s when Michael appears. He informs Henry that he’s an angel, and that he’s here to do that job. Henry accepts him, but they keep the angel part to themselves.

Henry introduces Michael to his wife Julia, and Michael immediately falls in love with her. It’s a novel experience for an angel, except that it reminds him of the world before the Fall, when all was innocence and love. Julia is a frustrated wife – there’s no passion in her marriage, and she pours her affections out on her daughter Juliette. (I did not like Juliette much – her dialogue seemed very artificial to me.)

Both Michael and Julia are strongly tempted, but (spoiler alert) nothing more than a kiss happens between them. Unlike in the movie, where the angel (called Dudley there) helps the bishop to understand his deeper ministry and to appreciate his wife, the book ends with nothing much changed in that regard. Michael completes his assignment and returns whence he came, with a deep and tragic and new understanding he never had before. Julia gains one thing in her life, but her marriage is left pretty much the same.

It’s hard to know what to say about The Bishop’s Wife. My orthodox Christianity made me an argumentative reader. The overarching theme seems to be that the joy and love of Heaven, which permeate Michael, are so much higher than Christian theology and morality that they render them rather irrelevant. (I’m sure that’s true in a sense, but it’s hard for a Christian to conceive of an angel being indifferent to the Son of God.) Henry is both a bad churchman and a bad husband, I think – he overspiritualizes his marriage and overmaterializes his ministry. It’s disappointing that he leaves the stage as clueless as he was before.

The Bishop’s Wife left this reader oddly flat. It’s remarkable to me that it’s one of Nathan’s most famous works.

Milestone

Photo credit: aaronburden. Unsplash license.

I hesitate to post this, because it sounds like bragging – even worse, it sounds like bragging about a spiritual matter. Even worse, I might actually be bragging and in denial about it. Maybe I can pour enough self-deprecation on to counterbalance the sin of pride.

Last night, at bedtime, I finished the Book of Malachi in my Bible (I always do my bedtime Bible reading in Norwegian, to multitask, stacking education on top of edification. I’ve done this for more than 50 years.) I started (in English) when I was in confirmation class at church; I must have been about 13 years old. I’m now… considerably older.

Since I read from the Old Testament and the New Testament at different times of the day, I get through the New Testament several times for every full reading of the Old Testament. I don’t know how many times I’ve read the New Testament. But last night marked my 20th reading of the O.T. (Actually, it may be my 21st. There was a time I lost track of the hash marks I put in the inside cover; I opted for the lower count to be sure I wasn’t cheating.)

At the rate of one chapter a night, five nights a week (I give myself a break on weekends), it takes me a little over four years to read the Old Testament through.

Twenty readings seems to me like a milestone. I could have racked up more hash tags, certainly; there have been periods in my life when I got out of the habit, not without guilt. (At one point I grew deeply concerned about my spiritual state, as I was having such a hard time picking the book up at night. Then it occurred to me that the print was awfully small. I procured a pair of reading glasses and found my spirituality restored.)

I’m sure there are a lot of people who’ve read the Bible more times than I have, adjusting for age or not. Some people follow reading plans that get them through the whole thing (New Testament included) in a year. I respect that, but I’ve never felt right setting goals in my Bible reading. It’s like scheduling visits to one’s grandmother.

There was an age when the number of times you’d read the Bible earned you esteem in the United States. Emotionally, I suppose I still live in that time.

Rewards in Heaven? I believe there are such things, but I generally don’t consider them in practice; when we get Over There, we’ll cast whatever crowns we’ve acquired at the feet of the King. So the only reward I expect for my Bible reading is whatever wisdom manages to work its way into my mind and spirit. That ought to be enough. Adults don’t expect a reward for eating healthy food – the food’s effects are the reward.

‘His Eyes,’ by Mark Charles Powers

Sometimes you read a book that’s so well-meaning that you just want to root for it. Especially if it’s a Christian book. I wish I could say that Mark Charles Powers’ His Eyes was a successful work of art, but I’m afraid I can’t.

As the book opens (the opening is quite well-written), Michael Judson, a teenager in a suburb in an unnamed southern state, is in shock. His younger brother Lucas has just died in a freak gun accident, and Michael doesn’t know whether he, his (single) mother, or Lucas himself pulled the trigger.

This is the most successful part of the book, as the horror and finality sink in and he and his mother deal with it, each in their own ways. Michael finds some comfort in the friendship of an old neighbor, who lends him a cassette tape (this story is set in 1997) featuring a Christian song that’s brought him comfort. He also makes friends with a neighbor boy who has unspoken problems of his own. Meanwhile his mother sinks into depression and guilt, becoming increasingly dependent on prescription tranquilizers. Their grief is only aggravated by her ex-husband’s accusations that she’s responsible for Lucas’s death.

I think it’s a general truth that in fiction it’s easier to portray grief and pain than to portray comfort and healing. That problem is only aggravated when a Christian message is being proclaimed. One tends (and I know this from experience) to fall into preachiness. One’s words sound like platitudes, even when the truths expressed have been hard-learned through suffering and tears. Such scenes require a deft handling of dialogue – and I regret to say that author Powers hasn’t quite mastered that skill. Michael, in particular, tends to fall into verbiage that sounds nothing like a teenager talking.

I wish Mark Charles Powers well. I think he has talent, and is capable of very good things. But he’s not ready for prime time. I fear that His Eyes, well-intentioned though it is, will not do the good he intended (though it certainly may in some cases, with readers less picky than I).

How to Develop a Precocious Mind

Young writer Bethel McGrew describes growing up with scholarly parents in a house of ten thousand books.

The ideological benefits of homeschooling are obvious, but besides these I’m moved to reflect on this simple freedom of time—time to train my attention on good and beautiful and difficult things, to furnish my mind with them at my own pace. I have sadly lost some of that gift of attention in the digital age. I flip through a decades-old memo pad logging all the books I read in a given year, in between the little to-do lists I would make for an afternoon of reading, chess study, or whatever else nine-year-old me was working on, and I’m filled with envy.

Bethel is a good columnist with strong opinions of her own, not simply all the correct ones. I recommending her Substack and whatever she releases into the wild, like this piece today on what the revival of Michael Jackson says about America.

Concerning audacity

Hard as it may be to believe, there are things I don’t understand. Tonight, purely on a whim, I shall ponder one of them. I rarely know what I think about anything, after all, until I’ve written it out.

When Elisha became sick with the illness of which he was to die, Joash the king of Israel came down to him and wept over him and said, “My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!” Elisha said to him, “Take a bow and arrows.” So he took a bow and arrows. Then he said to the king of Israel, “Put your hand on the bow.” And he put his hand on it, then Elisha laid his hands on the king’s hands. He said, “Open the window toward the east,” and he opened it. Then Elisha said, “Shoot!” And he shot. And he said, “The LORD’S arrow of victory, even the arrow of victory over Aram; for you will defeat the Arameans at Aphek until you have destroyed them.” Then he said, “Take the arrows,” and he took them. And he said to the king of Israel, “Strike the ground,” and he struck it three times and stopped. So the man of God was angry with him and said, “You should have struck five or six times, then you would have struck Aram until you would have destroyed it. But now you shall strike Aram only three times.” (II Cor. 13:14-19, NASB 95)

A little background, as I understand it: When you read the Old Testament prophets (which you definitely should do), you get the impression that the Israelites, especially those of the northern kingdom of Israel, pretty much apostatized. Turned their backs on Yahweh. Because the prophets are always condemning them for doing just that.

But if you pay attention to the historical books, you get a little more nuance. Very few of the kings seem to have gone so far as to convert to the Canaanite religion. They recognized the Lord as the God of their people, but (like all their contemporaries) they assumed religion was an ethnic thing. We’ve got our God, they’ve got theirs. And of course, when you did business, political and mercantile, with the pagans, you had to accommodate them. Show up for the occasional feast. Authorize construction of a temple to Baal or Ashtaroth here and there. Diversity is our strength, right? And the people of Israel had old traditional ties to the golden calves set up by Jeroboam; you had to be sensitive to that sentiment.

So the prophet Elijah had raged at King Joash (reigned around 801–786 BC) , and Joash had tolerated it. Now the old man was dying, and, like a small boy summoned to the deathbed of an uncle with whom he’d never gotten along, he paid a visit out of a sense of obligation.

Then the dying prophet asks him to do a crazy thing. He tells him to open a window and shoot an arrow out. Then he tells him to strike the rest of the arrows on the ground. Joash sighs (probably), and to humor the old man he strikes the arrows down three times, then stops. And in one final act of nagging, Elijah tells him he did it wrong. He should have struck more times. Then he gets the last word by dying.

This is a story that’s always troubled me. I identify strongly with Joash here. I grew up in an environment where both disinterest and enthusiasm were likely to get you in trouble. I respond to challenges cautiously, in a measured way. But God so often wants all-out enthusiasm. Jesus says, in Matthew 11:12, “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” (There’s dispute on the meaning of that verse, but I take it as condemning weenies like me.) Jewish culture celebrates “chutzpah,” audacity, a quality I lack almost entirely.

Jordan Peterson has reminisced about his youth in a small town on the Alberta prairie. He said that there were only two groups of guys to hang around with there – the bad boys, who got into trouble and mostly had poor futures in store, and the church boys. But he didn’t like the church boys either. They were “good,” he says, not because they loved virtue, but because they were afraid of taking risks.

That hits home at my house.

I wish the world understood this. I wish they understood that “church boys” like me are not actually Jesus’ target market for disciples. I’d wager there wasn’t a guy like me among all the twelve disciples. Sentimental illustrations always depict the Apostle John (for instance) as a clean-shaven, long-haired, slightly effeminate figure. Yet Jesus called him and his brother James “the Sons of Thunder.” They got in trouble with their buddies for asking for the top spots in the coming Kingdom (Mark 10:37). Chutzpah on parade.

All my life I’ve gotten into trouble (ironically) because I have difficulty asking for anything. Were James and John even embarrassed by their audacious request? Maybe the other disciples were upset because they didn’t think of it first.

For such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.” (John 4:23)

‘God’s Word Is Our Great Heritage’

I’m in the middle of reading a very interesting book whose review must wait till Monday. So, this being Friday, I have ferreted out another Scandinavian hymn for you.

“God’s Word Is Our Great Heritage,” I think, is not familiar to non-Lutherans, though the tune will be. (I find, to my chagrin, that most of the YouTube renditions feature the wrong tune – by which I mean a tune I didn’t grow up with. Almost the only version with the right tune is the one I’ve posted above, featuring a solo singer who does a pretty good job.)

The author of the hymn, once again, is the problematic N.F.S. Grundtvig of Denmark. It’s rather odd that we have a hymn in praise of Scripture from his pen, as one of his eccentric doctrines, at least at one point in his career, was that the Apostle’s Creed was older than the Gospels. Nevertheless, there it is, and I think it’s to his credit. The translator, Ole C. Belsheim, a Norwegian immigrant, attended, among other schools, Luther College, Decorah, Ia. and Augsburg Seminary, Minneapolis (both of which I attended too, except that Augsburg was just a college by the time I got there. It calls itself a university now, probably on the strength of its association with me).

The hymn is also peculiar in having just one verse, as far as I can tell. C. S. Lewis, who hated long hymns, would have loved this one, if he ever heard of it, which I doubt.

Happy weekend.

‘O Gladsome Light’

I often post old hymns here, especially on Fridays. But I’ve never posted one this old — it’s “O Gladsome Light” (Phos Hylarion) a hymn still used in Orthodox churches, and first known from a manuscript around 300 AD. But it could be older.

I should mention that others promote a hymn called the Oxyrhynchus Hymn. You can decide for yourself.

Have a good weekend.

Surprised by A.I.

I found this video on YouTube. It seems to me both wonderful and troubling.

First of all, Jack Lewis is using “my” microphone. It’s a Blue Yeti, and I have one exactly like it, even unto the color. (Or “colour,” as he would have spelled it.)

Secondly, it’s pretty well done, except for a couple glitches. The voice appears to be cloned from Lewis’ well-known The Four Loves recordings. (On the downside, I’ve read a statement from one of Lewis’s friends, who says that that was not his normal speaking style.)

The troubling aspect is – of course – just that this is A.I. I’m almost obligated to hate A.I., which took a much-needed job away from me.

The very idea of resurrecting actual humans through A.I. is just disturbing to many of us, whether it’s affected our bottom lines or not. It seems creepy, like necromancy. However, I’m not sure that creepy feeling is to be trusted. When radio was a new technology, there was a fair number of sincere Christians who denounced it as demonic – voices coming through the air; that has to come from the domain of the Prince of the Powers of the Air! (For our young readers, that’s a biblical reference to the devil (Ephesians 2:2 in the King James Version).

But the bottom line, for me, is that I found it kind of fun.

I’d like to see more of this sort of stuff, and no doubt I will. Maybe somebody can recreate Moody preaching, or Jonathan Edwards declaiming “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (contemporaries reported that he read it from a manuscript, in a very rote voice).

The best thing about A.I. might be that it could kill Hollywood. We can bring back the great actors of the past and cast them in new movies, bypassing Wokeness. I’d love to see a young Clint Eastwood playing Travis McGee, for instance. Authors could have total control of film adaptations. Who wants to do an A.I. production of The Year of the Warrior for 50 bucks? I might be able to spring for half of that.

The quest for the saint

Medieval altar to Saint Olaf preserved in Nidaros Cathedral.

Someone on Basefook brought this project to my attention. The idea is to locate the lost bones of St. Olaf (best remembered as a character in my Erling novels) for scientific and cultural purposes.

For a saint as problematic as he was in life, St. Olaf swung disproportionate weight in the religious life of the European Middle Ages. His shrine in Nidaros Cathedral was a rich and elaborate one, making the city of Trondheim a very popular pilgrimage destination (perhaps people calculated that the hard trip over Norwegian terrain would earn them extra penance points). Pilgrims streamed in from all over Europe, lifting up prayers, looking for miracles, and spending money. Sigrid Undset describes such pilgrimages in several of her novels.

During the Reformation, Olaf’s shrine was demolished and broken up, the proceeds going to the king. Yet it seems that the bones themselves were not destroyed. Instead, they seem to have been re-buried covertly. Anyone who knew the secret of their location did not pass it on. But now there’s this project to rediscover them using modern scientific techniques.

My Basefook friends have expressed mixed views on the project. Many of them are – reasonably – concerned that if the bones are recovered, they will once again become the object of pilgrimages and devotion. We Protestants don’t hold with that stuff, and I agree.

Yet, all things considered, I’m for it. I believe in freedom of religion, so let the Roman Catholics do what they like. If it serves as a counterweight to the advance of Islam in Europe, it’s the lesser of two evils, it seems to me. What I’d like is for Lutheran Norway to be preserved, but I’ll take a Catholic Norway over a Muslim one.

Also, I’ll be interested in what analysis of the bones will reveal.

I signed the petition. I’ll be watching the project’s progress with interest.

Excerpt from the Chronicles

Photo Credit: Alex Shuper. Unsplash License.

An extract from The Chronicles of the Last Days:

After the second Great War had been won, the victorious Americans went home to an undamaged country. They proceeded to build the freest and most prosperous society the world had ever seen. Vowing that their children would never suffer as they had, they lavished on them high-quality education, material comfort, and indulgent freedom.

This postwar generation was known as the Baby Boom. These “Boomers,” as they came to be called, took advantage of their opportunities, enjoying their freedom to the utmost, giving no thought to future generations – indeed, they made it a point to have few if any children of their own.

Yet this was not enough for them. They desired even more freedom. They identified Christian Puritanism as the one thing that was keeping them from total self-indulgence. “Let us destroy Christian Puritanism,” they said, “that there may be no limit to our license.” And so they did. Their contemporaries in Europe did the same. Together they plumbed the depths of depravity, squandered their nations’ wealth, and left the whole mess to the progressively smaller generations that followed them.

And when the Boomers finally aged and weakened, and realized that they must soon relinquish power and die, they said, “It is not right that the world should go on without us to enjoy it. Let us destroy the world – or let us at least destroy our civilization.”

And so they turned their civilization over to Islam, so that all liberty would be erased.

And this is why the name of Boomer remains a hissing and a byword among all the peoples of the earth, even unto this day.