Late: a day. Short: a dollar

Another night of contending with my lawn mower. I suppose I should pity the thing. It’s dying. The guy at the shop said fixing it isn’t worth the price of replacing it. So I’m running it as long as I can, until its wife becomes a grass widow, or my fuel mixture runs out.

But it’s a temperamental patient. It smokes as it runs, and when it gets tired it stops, refusing to start again until it’s rested. Which makes mowing an indefinite operation.

Hence the lateness of this post.

And all I’ve got to share is this link from Dale Nelson, about the release of a new edition of The Saga of King Heidrek the Wise, translated by Christopher Tolkien.

Like my lawn mower, I can only do what I can.

A New Favorite Word

Jocoseriosity: half-joking, half-serious, like this blog.

How many times have you hear someone speak with jocoseriosity? He makes his point with a slight spice of humor, and half the audience loves it, the other half hates it. Both remember it, so the jocoserious speaker wins.

The thoughtless side of the Force

35136, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - Friday October 23 2009. Musician Steph Jones is in high spirits as he leaves Hyde nightclub in LA. Steph, who dates fellow singer Jordin Sparks, was wearing an Obi-Wan Kenobi badge!! Photograph: Josephine Santos, PacificCoastNews.com



Today I was too busy
to listen closely to the weekly Ultimate Issues Hour on Dennis Prager’s radio show. But I caught one guy calling in on the subject of the existence of God. He explained that, for his own part, he thought of God as some kind of Force. Seeing God as an “old man in the sky” seemed to him primitive thinking.

One hears that sort of thing fairly often. I attribute it to the scientific world view that’s dominated public thought ever since the Enlightenment. Religion, under that view, is irrational and all about emotion. Science is about reason. If there’s a true explanation of ultimate reality, such thinking argues, it must be a scientific answer. So if there’s a God, He must be describable in scientific terms. A powerful Force seems to fit the bill.

Hey, George Lucas built a whole movie franchise out of it.

I would like to propose that describing God as a Force is both inadequate and profoundly unsatisfactory. Here’s why.

My first proposition is that God must be the greatest thing in the universe. Because if anything were greater than Him, that thing would be God. God is, by definition, that which has no superior.

A Force is by its nature an impersonal phenomenon. Forces do not think or choose or love.

Therefore, if God is a Force, God is not love.

But if you believe (as I do, and most people in our culture do, because they’ve never examined their beliefs) that love is the greatest thing of all, how can you say that God is a Force? That would mean that something that cannot love is superior to things that do love (that would be us).

You have to have it one way or the other. If God is a Force, He is not love, and love is not the greatest thing of all.

If God is Love, He is not a Force (or not merely a Force). He has to be a Person (three persons in one, according to Christians).

For me it’s a no brainer. Love wins. God must be Personal.

News from the east, some of it accurate

A stressful weekend, involving lots of travel and personal insecurity. Everything went fine, except inside my head. Best wishes to the principals involved; they know who they are.



I heard about this
on Michael Medved’s show this morning—our Ivy League-educated chief executive gave a speech at “the annual iftar dinner” at the White House, in which he put a little spin on the actual historical record.

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.”

That presents a nice, cozy picture—cosmopolitan Tom Jefferson, out of his tremendous respect for Islam (did you know he owned a copy of the Koran?) hosted a special dinner in accordance with Islamic law, as a sign of respect for a Muslim ambassador.

Not quite the way it was. According to “The Iconoclast” at New English Review, the guy wasn’t an ambassador, but an envoy, in this country to shake us down for the ransoms of American sailors kidnapped by the Barbary pirates. Jefferson served him dinner after sundown because that was the only time the guy would eat. By all accounts he was an arrogant jerk who made no effort to understand us, and when he left nobody missed him.

Jefferson balked at paying tribute but accepted the expectation that the host government would cover all expenses for such an emissary. He arranged for Mellimelli and his 11 attendants to be housed at a Washington hotel, and rationalized that the sale of the four horses and other fine gifts sent by the bey of Tunis would cover costs. Mellimelli’s request for “concubines” as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison.. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to “pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers.”

In less irritating news related to the Middle East, Joe Carter at First Things, in his weekly 33 Things post, links to these clips of a virtual model of Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem, a sight that would have been most familiar to the Lord and His disciples.

We’ve been told so many times that Jerusalem was an out-of-the-way outpost of the Roman empire, that we sometimes forget that Herod made his city a world-wide tourist attraction through the construction of a temple complex that was, in fact, one of the world’s wonders. The Roman government wasn’t entirely happy about it, either.

Stephen Prothero and Reviews of "God is Not One"

Earlier this year, several blogs participated in a review tour for Stephen Prothero’s book, God is not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Rule the World and Why Their Differences Matter. Here’s a quote from the introduction.

To claim that all religions are the same is to misunderstand that each tradition attempts to solve a different aspect of the human condition. For example:

  • Islam: the problem is pride / the solution is submission
  • Christianity: the problem is sin / the solution is salvation
  • Confucianism: the problem is chaos / the solution is social order
  • Buddhism: the problem is suffering / the solution is enlightenment
  • Hinduism: the problem is the endless cycle of reincarnation / the solution is release
  • Judaism: the problem is exile / the solution is our return back to God and to our true home

When we gloss over these differences we fail to appreciate each religion on its own terms.

The book appears to be a survey and not an apologetic. This Lutheran reviewer said she wanted more from the Christianity chapter “wishing I could add to further clarification regarding . . . consequences that 95 theses had on the world.” Unfortunately, the list of blogs doesn’t link directly to the reviews, save one. So here’s a link to a review from someone who disagrees with the book’s central premise.

West Oversea reviewed by Brandon Barr



Oh shoot, why not post a picture of the cover?

Fantasy author Brandon Barr reviews my West Oversea at his blog, here.

He says nice things.

I’ve been in contact with Brandon in the past, but I have to admit I haven’t read either of his co-authored books. I must remedy this. He is clearly a man of taste and discernment.

Muezzin musings

Circa 1500, David and Goliath as painted by Venetian artist Titian. (Photo by Rischgitz/Getty Images)

In response to tremendous public clamor, I shall share my views on the Cordoba Islamic Center near Ground Zero.

My views are kind of mixed, but mostly negative.

When I first heard about it, I thought, “What’s the big deal? It’s not directly on the 9/11 site. It’s just a mosque.”

But things I’ve been reading and hearing on the radio suggest that it’s not just a mosque, and that the very name is a statement of Islamic triumphalism.

I don’t know. I’m suspicious of conservative paranoia, but I’m also aware that symbolism is a very big deal with Muslims.

The thought that keeps recurring to me is, “We are told again and again, when dealing with the Islamic world, that it’s tremendously important to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims.

“So how come that doesn’t work both ways? How come Muslims have no obligation to be sensitive to the feelings of 9/11 victims?” Continue reading Muezzin musings