Posts
If you lived in Lynchburg anytime prior to 1996, and were a reader of our local newspaper, you were probably familiar with the name of Sheldon Vanauken. Vanauken, or "Van" to those who knew him as a friend, was for many years a professor of English and History at Lynchburg College and a frequent contributor of letters to the editor published in the Lynchburg daily newspapers. He was also the author of the spiritual autobiography A Severe Mercy, published in 1977 and still in print today. I had the privilege to meet Vanauken around the year 1994, and visited with him on a couple of occasions prior to his death in 1996. He was not well in those years, and I regret that I did not have the opportunity to know him better. I will always remember him as a kind and generous man, and he was, to me at that time, a link to the world of C. S. Lewis and the Inklings, and helped inspire me on the path I have followed since that time.
To remember Van on the 15th anniversary of his death, the New Oxford Review in October published reflections written by another friend, Chene Heady, which you can read here (for a fee if you are not a subscriber) https://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1011-heady
I was very pleased to see the recognition for Inklings Bookshop and the White Hart Cafe in the concluding paragraph of that article:
Seeking a sign that Vanauken’s legacy will prove permanent and endure, I often visit the Inklings Bookshop & White Hart Café in downtown Lynchburg. This nineteenth-century storefront — with hardwood floors, an English-style wooden bar, and random interior Greek columns — holds a wide selection of books whose content echoes Vanauken’s intellectual life. Whole bookcases are devoted to C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, to authors associated with the Inklings, to the classics, and to what the shelf tag carefully designates as “The War Between the States.” The Rev. Edward Hopkins, a Reformed Episcopal priest and a friend during Vanauken’s final years, founded the shop in 1995. Vanauken was “very supportive” of the project and helped the fledgling store along by signing many copies of his final book for them. Over fifteen years later, the Inklings Bookshop & White Hart Café has also, perhaps improbably, become the fashionable hangout for artsy types from all five Lynchburg-area colleges. Here you can sit under a framed photo of Tolkien and Lewis’s favorite Oxford pub, the Eagle and Child, while eating an authentic Southern breakfast. Here you can attend folk and alternative rock concerts on the weekends and the C.S. Lewis Reading Group on Mondays. Here evangelical devotees of the Inklings mingle with migrant hippies; activists from the tiny Lynchburg Democratic Party argue energetically with High Church classics scholars; and, as so often happens in college towns, young couples fall idealistically in love. Here I see all phases of Vanauken’s life re-enacted in a new generation, and I get the sense that his work will always endure, for we will always be his contemporaries.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Narnia Code
I had the opportunity to meet and visit with Michael Ward a few years ago, when he did a book signing at Inklings Bookshop and was introducing his book Planet Narnia. Now there is a video production of the book which first was broadcast on the BBC, and now available in the U. S. on DVD. Here is a link: http://www.narniacode.com/
Books I am Reading
I can't seem to ever read just one book at a time, as one may see from my list of books in the sidebar. I wanted to make a brief notice of two of these, both novels, because I am enjoying them, and think they are worthy of note.
T. M. Doran's book, Toward the Gleam, http://www.ignatius.com/Products/TOGL-H/toward-the-gleam.aspx is a mystery set in and around Oxford, following the adventure of one John Hill, an Oxford philologist, who accidentally discovers an ancient manuscript which contains the legends of a lost civilization. The character of John Hill is built around the actual J. R. R. Tolkien--the author creates an alternative history, to create a mystery-adventure story. Along the way, the reader is introduced to G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, and others friends of Tolkien.
Another novel with an Inklings background is Looking for the King http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/looking-for-the-king/ by David C. Downing. Also set in the environs of Oxford at the beginning of World War II, the story follows two young Americans who set out to follow the legends of King Arthur and along the way are introduced to Lewis, Charles Williams, and others.
Both of these titles are published by Ignatius Press. This publisher has produced some excellent fiction in recent years. Worthy of note from Ignatius is also the series by Michael O'Brien, http://www.ignatius.com/Products/FE-P/father-elijah.aspx including Father Elijah, Sophia House, Strangers and Sojourners, and several more. If you haven't tried him, you should.
T. M. Doran's book, Toward the Gleam, http://www.ignatius.com/Products/TOGL-H/toward-the-gleam.aspx is a mystery set in and around Oxford, following the adventure of one John Hill, an Oxford philologist, who accidentally discovers an ancient manuscript which contains the legends of a lost civilization. The character of John Hill is built around the actual J. R. R. Tolkien--the author creates an alternative history, to create a mystery-adventure story. Along the way, the reader is introduced to G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, and others friends of Tolkien.
Another novel with an Inklings background is Looking for the King http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/looking-for-the-king/ by David C. Downing. Also set in the environs of Oxford at the beginning of World War II, the story follows two young Americans who set out to follow the legends of King Arthur and along the way are introduced to Lewis, Charles Williams, and others.
Both of these titles are published by Ignatius Press. This publisher has produced some excellent fiction in recent years. Worthy of note from Ignatius is also the series by Michael O'Brien, http://www.ignatius.com/Products/FE-P/father-elijah.aspx including Father Elijah, Sophia House, Strangers and Sojourners, and several more. If you haven't tried him, you should.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Resurrection Controversy in the Burg
In the last couple of weeks, the letters to the editor pages of the Lynchburg News and Advance have featured a controversy over the bodily resurrection of Jesus. On May 1, a retired United Methodist minister, William F. Quillian, Jr. tells us there is no evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
Of course the letter brought various rebuttals: from the United Methodist district superintendent and another UMC pastor, among others, and support: from a retired mainline Presbyterian minister. The most intelligent and carefully reasoned response came from a Liberty University philosophy professor. http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2011/may/05/letters-editor-thursday-may-5-2011-ar-1017156/
Dr. Foreman pointed out that no claim of a historical nature is subject to the evidence afforded by “scientific” investigation, so by the proofs of science, there is no proof of the resurrection. But of course this is the case with any matter of ancient history. Did Caesar cross the Rubicon in 49BC? Well the historical evidence seems pretty conclusive, and historians accept this as a fact of history. But is there scientific evidence for this? Can it be proven, Mr. Quillian may ask? Well, no.
On May 10 Mr. Quillian responded http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2011/may/10/letters-editor-tuesday-may-10-2011-ar-1028923/
in what is titled (by the paper?) “The last word on the resurrection.” Quillian writes, “No letter writer has pointed to any “evidence” of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.” I am wondering, did Quillian not read Dr. Foreman’s letter, or is the distinction between scientific and historical evidence too subtle for him to understand? Or perhaps this is just a case of “what my net don’t catch ain’t fish.” If someone offers evidence that points to a conclusion he doesn’t like, Quillian just says, “that’s not evidence.”
Quillian then admonishes his readers to hear Jesus’ "final" message to his disciples and he quotes the passage from Matthew 25 concerning ministry to the poor and needy. But I wonder why Quillian thinks this is really the word of Jesus, since the same Gospel of Matthew that records this also records a detailed account of the bodily resurrection of Christ. Could the gospel writer accurately report the lengthy discourses of Jesus, but totally botch the matter of the resurrection? If the "resurrection" was only a dream, or a delusion, or a matter of Jesus being "alive in the disciples consciousness," or something like that, then maybe the idea of mission in Matthew 25 is likewise just as unreal.
I also wonder why Quillian says this is Jesus’ “final message.” Matthew records these as the Lord’s final words: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations…” And Luke records this: “Thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all nations. And you are witnesses of these things.” Among the final words of Jesus in the gospel of John are these: “”reach your finger here, and look at my hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into my side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing. …Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Now what is a fair evaluation of the testimony of these three writers of the first century? Is it reasonable to conclude that they believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus? Apparently they did. The same gospel writers who tell of the wonderful words of Jesus, also tell of his wonderful works. Is it reasonable to accept one and not the other?
So, Mr. Quillan, if you give no credence to what the gospel writers affirm was seen, why should you believe what they claim was spoken?
Unfortunately such “experts” as Bishop Jack Spong, and those enamored by his writings, such as William Quillian, apparently demand scientific proof. But the bodily resurrection, if it happened, is a matter of history, not science, and it is therefore not subject to scientific proof. It is a matter of faith. But while it is a matter of faith, it is not unsupported by reasonable conclusions from the historical data. But nevertheless, it is a matter of reasonable faith that all Christian churches have demanded of those who are ordained to teach the faith.
(I am amazed at how often writers reference Bishop Spong as competent scholar or guide in matters of religion. In my opinion he is anything but a competent scholar of a reliable guide in matters of faith. See my next two postings for my impressions of the bishop from 10 years ago.)
Of course the letter brought various rebuttals: from the United Methodist district superintendent and another UMC pastor, among others, and support: from a retired mainline Presbyterian minister. The most intelligent and carefully reasoned response came from a Liberty University philosophy professor. http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2011/may/05/letters-editor-thursday-may-5-2011-ar-1017156/
Dr. Foreman pointed out that no claim of a historical nature is subject to the evidence afforded by “scientific” investigation, so by the proofs of science, there is no proof of the resurrection. But of course this is the case with any matter of ancient history. Did Caesar cross the Rubicon in 49BC? Well the historical evidence seems pretty conclusive, and historians accept this as a fact of history. But is there scientific evidence for this? Can it be proven, Mr. Quillian may ask? Well, no.
On May 10 Mr. Quillian responded http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2011/may/10/letters-editor-tuesday-may-10-2011-ar-1028923/
in what is titled (by the paper?) “The last word on the resurrection.” Quillian writes, “No letter writer has pointed to any “evidence” of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.” I am wondering, did Quillian not read Dr. Foreman’s letter, or is the distinction between scientific and historical evidence too subtle for him to understand? Or perhaps this is just a case of “what my net don’t catch ain’t fish.” If someone offers evidence that points to a conclusion he doesn’t like, Quillian just says, “that’s not evidence.”
Quillian then admonishes his readers to hear Jesus’ "final" message to his disciples and he quotes the passage from Matthew 25 concerning ministry to the poor and needy. But I wonder why Quillian thinks this is really the word of Jesus, since the same Gospel of Matthew that records this also records a detailed account of the bodily resurrection of Christ. Could the gospel writer accurately report the lengthy discourses of Jesus, but totally botch the matter of the resurrection? If the "resurrection" was only a dream, or a delusion, or a matter of Jesus being "alive in the disciples consciousness," or something like that, then maybe the idea of mission in Matthew 25 is likewise just as unreal.
I also wonder why Quillian says this is Jesus’ “final message.” Matthew records these as the Lord’s final words: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations…” And Luke records this: “Thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all nations. And you are witnesses of these things.” Among the final words of Jesus in the gospel of John are these: “”reach your finger here, and look at my hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into my side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing. …Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Now what is a fair evaluation of the testimony of these three writers of the first century? Is it reasonable to conclude that they believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus? Apparently they did. The same gospel writers who tell of the wonderful words of Jesus, also tell of his wonderful works. Is it reasonable to accept one and not the other?
So, Mr. Quillan, if you give no credence to what the gospel writers affirm was seen, why should you believe what they claim was spoken?
Unfortunately such “experts” as Bishop Jack Spong, and those enamored by his writings, such as William Quillian, apparently demand scientific proof. But the bodily resurrection, if it happened, is a matter of history, not science, and it is therefore not subject to scientific proof. It is a matter of faith. But while it is a matter of faith, it is not unsupported by reasonable conclusions from the historical data. But nevertheless, it is a matter of reasonable faith that all Christian churches have demanded of those who are ordained to teach the faith.
(I am amazed at how often writers reference Bishop Spong as competent scholar or guide in matters of religion. In my opinion he is anything but a competent scholar of a reliable guide in matters of faith. See my next two postings for my impressions of the bishop from 10 years ago.)
Friday, May 13, 2011
Jack Spong in Lynchburg
I had the opportunity to hear Bishop John Spong when he spoke in Lynchburg about 10 years ago. Since Spong is frequently referenced by writers to the Lynchburg newspaper, I thought some might appreciate my take on the man.
-------------
Jack Spong is a very funny man. He is a master of the clever quip, the amusing anecdote, the humorous aside--an entertaining speaker. He is the kind of person who would probably be an enjoyable companion for drinks or dinner. But as a bishop, as a shepherd of the people of Christ's church, I find him anything but a reliable guide.
The crowd nearly filled the large sanctuary at St. John's church in Lynchburg this evening, and welcomed back its most famous rector. Jack Spong served this, one of Lynchburg's influential and wealthy congregations, during some troubling years of the late 1960's. Now Spong declares that every book he has written (his 18th will soon be released) had its beginning in the adult Sunday School class he taught during those four years in Lynchburg.
The bishop is introduced as, and he seems to style himself as, a man who has fought courageously all his life against prejudice and ignorance. As the reverend relates his life's story, we learn that he had the good fortune of being, from the age of 3 1/2 years, morally superior to his parents. He recalls an incident when, at that age, his father severely reprimanded him for addressing the black workmen at his home as "sir." He admits he didn't understand fully, but he says he knew then that his father was wrong.
His life's story is a fascinating one. It seems he once held every prejudice known to man, but had the great good fortune of overcoming them all. The racial thing was overcome at an early age, but it took a few more years to overcome the anti-Semitism, chauvinism, homophobia, and biblical fundamentalism he absorbed from his Episcopalian home and Sunday School.
One of the many anecdotes that fail to ring true was his saying that growing up in his church he never knew that Jesus and the disciples were Jewish. Jews were always bad people, he was taught. Jesus was light skinned and blue-eyed. Spong thought he was a Swede!
Another thing he ascribes to conservative Christian faith is the idea that only men are made in the image of God. Again, it strains credulity to suggest that such an idea was at all common even in the most fundatmentalist churches within the bishop's lifetime.
Perhaps the most outrageous statement of the evening was his assertion that the Ten Commandments are immoral. He believes they are immoral because the commandments assume that women are the property of men (the 7th and 10th commandments imply this, he says.) Some of his most effective laugh lines were delivered in making this point about his overcoming his prejudice against women.
Throughout the lecture, the bishop derided a conservative view of scripture, appealing to the idea that since the Bible has been interpreted in ways that we find unacceptable today, the Bible cannot be a reliable guide to us today. In doing this it is the bishop's unfortunate tendency to misrepresent what the Bible actually says. For instance, he says that Deuteronomy teaches that a child that talks back to his parents must be stoned to death. "How many of you every talked back to your parents?" the bishop asks. "How many of you would be here today if this law were enforced?" Surely even he knows that this is not the intention of the passage (Deut. 21: 18f) that speaks of the execution of incorrigible sons. But this is the way Spong usually refers to Scripture with which he is uncomfortable. He presents it in its most unfavorable light, or actually distorts it, to the evident delight of his audience.
The bishop spoke of the challenge of overcoming homophobia in his own life, in his diocese of Newark, the house of bishops, and the church at large. He tells of the vast opposition among the church leadership to his ordination of an openly homosexual priest in 1989, but evidently feels vindicated in that today most bishops of the church are on his side of this issue. Bishop Spong seems to have indeed led a wave of change in the Episcopal Church USA, and we can expect if trends continue in this direction. the church membership will be so liberated from its past that they will no longer know who they are, and the ECUSA will quietly fade into oblivion.
The Rt. Rev. Spong ended his talk and the congregation responded with a lengthy standing ovation. My hands were still; I remained in my seat. I was entertained, this is true, but I somehow expect more from a bishop.
-------------
Jack Spong is a very funny man. He is a master of the clever quip, the amusing anecdote, the humorous aside--an entertaining speaker. He is the kind of person who would probably be an enjoyable companion for drinks or dinner. But as a bishop, as a shepherd of the people of Christ's church, I find him anything but a reliable guide.
The crowd nearly filled the large sanctuary at St. John's church in Lynchburg this evening, and welcomed back its most famous rector. Jack Spong served this, one of Lynchburg's influential and wealthy congregations, during some troubling years of the late 1960's. Now Spong declares that every book he has written (his 18th will soon be released) had its beginning in the adult Sunday School class he taught during those four years in Lynchburg.
The bishop is introduced as, and he seems to style himself as, a man who has fought courageously all his life against prejudice and ignorance. As the reverend relates his life's story, we learn that he had the good fortune of being, from the age of 3 1/2 years, morally superior to his parents. He recalls an incident when, at that age, his father severely reprimanded him for addressing the black workmen at his home as "sir." He admits he didn't understand fully, but he says he knew then that his father was wrong.
His life's story is a fascinating one. It seems he once held every prejudice known to man, but had the great good fortune of overcoming them all. The racial thing was overcome at an early age, but it took a few more years to overcome the anti-Semitism, chauvinism, homophobia, and biblical fundamentalism he absorbed from his Episcopalian home and Sunday School.
One of the many anecdotes that fail to ring true was his saying that growing up in his church he never knew that Jesus and the disciples were Jewish. Jews were always bad people, he was taught. Jesus was light skinned and blue-eyed. Spong thought he was a Swede!
Another thing he ascribes to conservative Christian faith is the idea that only men are made in the image of God. Again, it strains credulity to suggest that such an idea was at all common even in the most fundatmentalist churches within the bishop's lifetime.
Perhaps the most outrageous statement of the evening was his assertion that the Ten Commandments are immoral. He believes they are immoral because the commandments assume that women are the property of men (the 7th and 10th commandments imply this, he says.) Some of his most effective laugh lines were delivered in making this point about his overcoming his prejudice against women.
Throughout the lecture, the bishop derided a conservative view of scripture, appealing to the idea that since the Bible has been interpreted in ways that we find unacceptable today, the Bible cannot be a reliable guide to us today. In doing this it is the bishop's unfortunate tendency to misrepresent what the Bible actually says. For instance, he says that Deuteronomy teaches that a child that talks back to his parents must be stoned to death. "How many of you every talked back to your parents?" the bishop asks. "How many of you would be here today if this law were enforced?" Surely even he knows that this is not the intention of the passage (Deut. 21: 18f) that speaks of the execution of incorrigible sons. But this is the way Spong usually refers to Scripture with which he is uncomfortable. He presents it in its most unfavorable light, or actually distorts it, to the evident delight of his audience.
The bishop spoke of the challenge of overcoming homophobia in his own life, in his diocese of Newark, the house of bishops, and the church at large. He tells of the vast opposition among the church leadership to his ordination of an openly homosexual priest in 1989, but evidently feels vindicated in that today most bishops of the church are on his side of this issue. Bishop Spong seems to have indeed led a wave of change in the Episcopal Church USA, and we can expect if trends continue in this direction. the church membership will be so liberated from its past that they will no longer know who they are, and the ECUSA will quietly fade into oblivion.
The Rt. Rev. Spong ended his talk and the congregation responded with a lengthy standing ovation. My hands were still; I remained in my seat. I was entertained, this is true, but I somehow expect more from a bishop.
More on Bishop Spong
This was a letter to the editor of the Lynchburg News and Advance from March 2001.
------------------
As reported in your pages March 28, the Rt. Rev. John Spong spoke to a near-capacity crowd at St. John's Episcopal church Tuesday night, and the crowd seemed very pleased with his performance. Bishop Spong is presented by his publishers and promoters as a man of integrity, and a scholar of significant learning. However, based upon reading several of his books and from hearing his talk, I would say that he is neither. Let me explain by citing a couple of examples from his talk Tuesday evening.
When speaking of the Old Testament law, Spong told the audience that Deuteronomy teaches that children who talk back to their parents should be stoned to death. He asked the crowd "how many of you would be here tonight if that law were applied?" That book of Scripture does prescribe the death penalty for incorrigible sons. The passage in question speaks of a son who is stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous and a drunkard. The Biblical example is in no way equivalent to "talking back to" a parent, as Spong described it. I am not arguing for the application of this law, only that the Bishop did not honestly describe what the Bible actually says. Therefore, we can conclude either of two things. Either Bishop Spong doesn't know what the Bible says, and therefore he is not a good Biblical scholar, and should not be trusted concerning the Bible; or, Bishop Spong knows what the Bible actually says, but chose to distort it. In the later case, Bishop Spong is a dishonest man, and should not be trusted.
Another example has to do with his assertion that Jesus was not relgious, and that the New Testament barely even mentions the practice of religion. Spong declared that the term "religion" is only found in the New Testament in the Book of James, which, he pointed out, Martin Luther thought should not be included in the canon of Scripture. Apart from the fact that the Greek word used in James for "religion" is indeed found in two other places in the New Testament, Bishop Spong confuses his audience with the suggestion that the lack of a certain word ("religion") proves the lack of concern for religious practice. This would be like saying I rarely see the word "journalism" in the News & Advance, therefore this newspaper cares little for journalism.
That Jesus did observe many religious practices of his day is beyond question, if we accept the near contemporary accounts of Jesus life--the Gospels. There we read of Jesus at the age of twelve making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover, and studying Torah in the temple with the elders. In the gospels we learn that Jesus regularly attended synagogue. We see him journeying to Jerusalem with his disciples for Passover and for the feast of tabernacles. We see him practicing acts of charity. We see him receiving the baptism of John. We see him observing the passover meal with his disciples and instituting the continued observance of this meal--what we call the Lord's Supper. We see Jesus at prayer in public and in private. He said that his disciples do not fast now, while he is with them, but they will fast later when he is taken away. In the sermon on the mount he instructed his disciples in the practice of prayer, alms giving and fasting.
Once again I must conclude that either Spong doesn't really know what the Bible says, or he does know and distorts it. In the one case, he is not a person who should be trusted as a teacher of Scripture; in the other case he should not be trusted as a moral guide.
Jesus did of course strongly object to some of the religious observances of the Pharisees--especially their tendency to add on to the requirements of the law, making it nearly impossible to fulfill. But Jesus also objected to the religion of the Sadducees, that rationalistic, anti-supernatural party of first-century Judaism. In Spong's zeal to avoid the errors of the Pharisees, it appears that he has embraced the spirit of the Sadducees. Such a spirit will be not the life of Christianity in the 21st century, but its death--as the declining membership in Spong's diocese of Newark and the Episcopal Church as a whole would seem to show.
------------------
As reported in your pages March 28, the Rt. Rev. John Spong spoke to a near-capacity crowd at St. John's Episcopal church Tuesday night, and the crowd seemed very pleased with his performance. Bishop Spong is presented by his publishers and promoters as a man of integrity, and a scholar of significant learning. However, based upon reading several of his books and from hearing his talk, I would say that he is neither. Let me explain by citing a couple of examples from his talk Tuesday evening.
When speaking of the Old Testament law, Spong told the audience that Deuteronomy teaches that children who talk back to their parents should be stoned to death. He asked the crowd "how many of you would be here tonight if that law were applied?" That book of Scripture does prescribe the death penalty for incorrigible sons. The passage in question speaks of a son who is stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous and a drunkard. The Biblical example is in no way equivalent to "talking back to" a parent, as Spong described it. I am not arguing for the application of this law, only that the Bishop did not honestly describe what the Bible actually says. Therefore, we can conclude either of two things. Either Bishop Spong doesn't know what the Bible says, and therefore he is not a good Biblical scholar, and should not be trusted concerning the Bible; or, Bishop Spong knows what the Bible actually says, but chose to distort it. In the later case, Bishop Spong is a dishonest man, and should not be trusted.
Another example has to do with his assertion that Jesus was not relgious, and that the New Testament barely even mentions the practice of religion. Spong declared that the term "religion" is only found in the New Testament in the Book of James, which, he pointed out, Martin Luther thought should not be included in the canon of Scripture. Apart from the fact that the Greek word used in James for "religion" is indeed found in two other places in the New Testament, Bishop Spong confuses his audience with the suggestion that the lack of a certain word ("religion") proves the lack of concern for religious practice. This would be like saying I rarely see the word "journalism" in the News & Advance, therefore this newspaper cares little for journalism.
That Jesus did observe many religious practices of his day is beyond question, if we accept the near contemporary accounts of Jesus life--the Gospels. There we read of Jesus at the age of twelve making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover, and studying Torah in the temple with the elders. In the gospels we learn that Jesus regularly attended synagogue. We see him journeying to Jerusalem with his disciples for Passover and for the feast of tabernacles. We see him practicing acts of charity. We see him receiving the baptism of John. We see him observing the passover meal with his disciples and instituting the continued observance of this meal--what we call the Lord's Supper. We see Jesus at prayer in public and in private. He said that his disciples do not fast now, while he is with them, but they will fast later when he is taken away. In the sermon on the mount he instructed his disciples in the practice of prayer, alms giving and fasting.
Once again I must conclude that either Spong doesn't really know what the Bible says, or he does know and distorts it. In the one case, he is not a person who should be trusted as a teacher of Scripture; in the other case he should not be trusted as a moral guide.
Jesus did of course strongly object to some of the religious observances of the Pharisees--especially their tendency to add on to the requirements of the law, making it nearly impossible to fulfill. But Jesus also objected to the religion of the Sadducees, that rationalistic, anti-supernatural party of first-century Judaism. In Spong's zeal to avoid the errors of the Pharisees, it appears that he has embraced the spirit of the Sadducees. Such a spirit will be not the life of Christianity in the 21st century, but its death--as the declining membership in Spong's diocese of Newark and the Episcopal Church as a whole would seem to show.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Buying Used Books on the Internet—Caveat Emptor
When I started selling books in 1994, the Internet was still a novelty, and there were, I believe, only one or two avenues to purchase used books online. The number of online booksellers was very limited, and the level of professionalism was quite high among those dealers. Now there are thousands of online book dealers, and the overall quality of service has declined dramatically. (Prices have declined dramatically too—very nice for the buyer, but not so nice for us dealers).
There are many venues for your online book purchases. You can shop through Amazon, of course, and EBay, but there are many more, including Alibris, and my favorite, Biblio.com. One online listing site for independent dealers is ABE Books, which lists books from 7,058 dealers in the United States.
I have just received a copy of James Safire’s novel of the War Between the States titled Freedom: A Novel of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. (This 1100 page monster was recommended in another volume that I highly regard, Jeffrey Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War.) I searched online for a used hardcover copy and ordered it through ABE Books from a dealer located in Florida.
I often search for used books on ABE, and nine times out of ten, it seems, this particular dealer has one of the least expensive copies available, often priced with no additional charge for shipping. Another thing you will notice if you search for a book and find it at this dealer, it will almost certainly be described as “a wonderful copy.” Here is the dealer’s description for the book I just received: “A wonderful copy with some minor edgewear to the cover. Dust jacket has some edgewear present. Hardcover, Very Good/Very Good.”
I have usually assumed the cheapest copy available is not going to be a very nice copy, but I’ve always wondered about this dealer’s “wonderful” copies, so I ordered this one to find out. I now wonder how any book dealer could describe the book I received as “wonderful” or “Very Good.”
First of all, this hardcover is a Book Club edition, which should always be noted in a book’s description, as often these are of inferior quality compared to the publisher’s original edition. Then there is that “some edgewear” on the dustjacket. The jacket of this book was not only worn but also torn along the edges in several places, the corners worn through, with another one-inch tear on the rear. The jacket would rate no more than “Good” in my shop. The book itself probably rates a Good or Good+. The edges are worn (as described), the spine is bent, and it shows rough handling.
The condition of this large book was probably worsened as it came through the mail because the packaging was totally inadequate. This 2.5-inch-thick volume came in a padded envelope, which had come open in transit, with no other wrapping around the book, and there was no invoice or packing slip.
On the plus side, it was cheap. For this massive volume I paid $3.64 including shipping. I ordered it on March 2 and received it March 15—about average shipping time for Media Mail. So, if you are not too concerned about the condition of the book, and you can wait a couple of weeks to get it, this dealer might be the place to shop. However, if you are concerned about quality or condition or speed of service, I would recommend that you not buy the cheapest copy you can find. If a dealer boasts of listing 1.2 million books and has the cheapest copy available, they are not paying much attention to accuracy in their listings.
The Internet certainly offers some bargains for book hunters—but caveat emptor—let the buyer beware.
There are many venues for your online book purchases. You can shop through Amazon, of course, and EBay, but there are many more, including Alibris, and my favorite, Biblio.com. One online listing site for independent dealers is ABE Books, which lists books from 7,058 dealers in the United States.
I have just received a copy of James Safire’s novel of the War Between the States titled Freedom: A Novel of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. (This 1100 page monster was recommended in another volume that I highly regard, Jeffrey Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War.) I searched online for a used hardcover copy and ordered it through ABE Books from a dealer located in Florida.
I often search for used books on ABE, and nine times out of ten, it seems, this particular dealer has one of the least expensive copies available, often priced with no additional charge for shipping. Another thing you will notice if you search for a book and find it at this dealer, it will almost certainly be described as “a wonderful copy.” Here is the dealer’s description for the book I just received: “A wonderful copy with some minor edgewear to the cover. Dust jacket has some edgewear present. Hardcover, Very Good/Very Good.”
I have usually assumed the cheapest copy available is not going to be a very nice copy, but I’ve always wondered about this dealer’s “wonderful” copies, so I ordered this one to find out. I now wonder how any book dealer could describe the book I received as “wonderful” or “Very Good.”
First of all, this hardcover is a Book Club edition, which should always be noted in a book’s description, as often these are of inferior quality compared to the publisher’s original edition. Then there is that “some edgewear” on the dustjacket. The jacket of this book was not only worn but also torn along the edges in several places, the corners worn through, with another one-inch tear on the rear. The jacket would rate no more than “Good” in my shop. The book itself probably rates a Good or Good+. The edges are worn (as described), the spine is bent, and it shows rough handling.
The condition of this large book was probably worsened as it came through the mail because the packaging was totally inadequate. This 2.5-inch-thick volume came in a padded envelope, which had come open in transit, with no other wrapping around the book, and there was no invoice or packing slip.
On the plus side, it was cheap. For this massive volume I paid $3.64 including shipping. I ordered it on March 2 and received it March 15—about average shipping time for Media Mail. So, if you are not too concerned about the condition of the book, and you can wait a couple of weeks to get it, this dealer might be the place to shop. However, if you are concerned about quality or condition or speed of service, I would recommend that you not buy the cheapest copy you can find. If a dealer boasts of listing 1.2 million books and has the cheapest copy available, they are not paying much attention to accuracy in their listings.
The Internet certainly offers some bargains for book hunters—but caveat emptor—let the buyer beware.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)