When I first met Amber somehow on the blogs about 25 months ago or so, she was a Catholic-in-training, attending the classes in order to become part of the Roman Catholic Church. I immediately found her quirky style amusing and became a fast fan of her posts. Admittedly some things she loves (comic books, scary movies, supernatural TV) are not in my interests, but for the most part ..yeah, I'll stop gushing about her now.
Although Catholic, Amber had online friendships with Orthodox women (or I assumed) and I noticed Amber - ever the avid reader and interested in religion - started posting more about Orthodoxy as she read books and listened to messages concerning the beliefs of this faith. I read these posts with the desire to learn about something unfamiliar to me. I grew up Baptist so ...
Fast forward to last month when I saw a Facebook friend - who I knew in real life once upon a time (we worked together briefly) - had converted to Orthodox Christianity leaving his Southern Baptist roots. Intrigued I did what I am famous for: I asked a bunch of questions. And Daniel was kind enough to reply at length and follow-up with more answers when I had further questions. (He made his reply public on his blog so you can read about his story here if you want to know why he started searching and how he found Orthodox Christianity.)
He and Amber both had recommended a couple of books which I mentioned I put on my Amazon Wishlist. I received The Orthodox Church for Christmas, started reading it January 1 and immediately the notes began. I appreciate greatly the ones who have left feedback on those posts!
I decided to do this post as a collection of helpful articles and videos recommended by these people. Yeah, they have been that good! This way if someone is searching for information on Orthodoxy, they may stumble upon this post and see what was beneficial in explaining things to me.
I watched these videos (recommended by Daniel) and found them highly informative concerning why Scripture plus Holy Tradition is important vs. Sola Scriptura of most Protestants This Series
In one of my first posts I mentioned women in Orthodoxy and Anonymous God Blogger submitted this fascinating article. Orthodox Woman Writes About Women In Her Faith
In my balking at "theosis" or the idea of our becoming gods, again Anonymous God Blogger came through with this wonderful article which helped me understand the Orthodox position much better. Annnnd this was written by an evangelical so that made it even better for me to swallow. Excellent Article
Amber linked me to a past article she wrote on this topic of Deification (which I'd read before, but it's been many months). I found it very helpful as well. Her Post
While reading it, I saw these posts concerning Icons which I reread and found of great help and interest. Part 1 and Part 2
Seeing how I still have a ways to go in this book, I will likely add more helpful links in coming days.
Again, thank you all for your feedback!
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
"African Notebook"
Since I'm reading The Orthodox Church rather slowly, I decided to pick up a couple shorter reads at the library today. I was totally looking for another book, but got stuck in the Africa section and brought home African Notebook which is copyrighted in 1939 and sold for three bucks! It seems to be observations from Albert Schweitzer and people he knew. It kind of just jumps right in with little explanation. It's more like reading someone's notebook (*ahem* the title) than a fabulously-written book. But I am enjoying the cultural stuff quite much! It's funny because he notes 'white person' or 'black catechist' and refers to 'my Africans' as well as 'savages' when speaking of the people of this region (now Gabon).
I was just reading about marriage in the chapter titled - get this - "Differences Between White People and Black People." He said the Africans wanted to know how the Europeans differed from them and they were incredibly shocked to hear that some of them row (as in canoes) for fun! In Africa so much of their life involved physical activity that the thought of 'sport' for fun was a bit mind-boggling.
Another shocker was the fact men didn't have to pay for their wives! In their culture the men often started working at age 16 in order to buy a bride. Daughters were prized because they brought wealth to their families. When a white woman had twin daughters one of the Africans declared her rich!
The families begin calculating the cost of their daughters and when the young men want to marry, they pay an initial installment (sometimes borrowing from family or friends), and then continue paying installments. Sometimes they start "buying" their brides when the girls are mere children. Later they marry and continue paying to her family. Two problems: they often don't know the set price to begin with (and I got the impression the woman's family milked the young husband for all they could get by with). So the guy may stop making payments only to go home and find his wife gone. Yup she was stolen by her family until he makes the next payment! The women are fine with this as it's all they know. They willingly go back with their family realizing this is the way it works.
The author says for about a third of the year his male nurses are "grass-widowers" and grumpy to boot having to cook for themselves and all.
Children belong to the mother and her brothers. They will always find protection from them. Divorces are rare. Husbands don't want to divorce usually because their wives were so costly. Wives rarely seek divorces because then her family (brothers and uncles) have to repay the money which is often already spent. Fascinating, huh?
Other interesting facts:
The importance of rubber to the economy as it was sought after by the Europeans. The trek through the jungle to obtain it was awful.
Salt was the prized currency for those living in the interior. Money was useless unless they happened to live near a trading post.
Many Europeans took advantage of the Africans' love of alcohol and one person was given possession of an island in exchange for a bottle of brew. Later the Europeans saw the error of giving the Africans alcohol and it was prohibited for use in trading.
Coastal Africans would often enslave those from the interior to work on their plantations. Some went willingly because the interior didn't have native fruit trees and therefore lack of food was common. Some parents gave up their children with hopes they would be taken to places with plenty to eat. Some slaves were offered freedom yet preferred to work for their masters in order to have food and shelter. But for many it was traumatic to be taken forcefully from their families. Slave trade to the New World was especially harsh as the Africans feared they were to become food for white people! They thought those tins of food were their destinies!
The first time one European played a gramophone, the natives stomped it and went for the man (who had to flee for his life) thinking it contained the voices of their ancestors' spirits "which the white man had imprisoned in the box by magic." (pg. 41) Later they came to accept the gramophone and you would find them in nearly every village. "The Africans do not worry about how it can be possible that speech and music come out of a box. This is for them only one of the many incomprehensible things achieved by the white man. 'The white man is an artful fellow,' my Hospital assistant Joseph used to say in regard to machines and such things."
Writing was seen as a form of magic partly because they saw how a written order for supplies (in trading) was filled at the post. They wanted to be able to write something that would "magically" get them salt and pots and cotton cloth and weapons.
I liked the story of when someone at the Mission Station at Lambaréné was showing images from the Passion during Holy Week by a "magic lantern." Schweitzer writes: "When Judas first appeared on the sheet among the disciples, there resounded cries from the background, 'Look out! He will betray you!' When he kissed the Lord in Gethsemane, the onlookers could no longer control themselves. They jumped up, clenched their fists and shouted imprecations and threats. The missionary had to calm them down before he could go on with the display." (pg. 40)
What was the most interesting fact that I recounted? Your thoughts?
I was just reading about marriage in the chapter titled - get this - "Differences Between White People and Black People." He said the Africans wanted to know how the Europeans differed from them and they were incredibly shocked to hear that some of them row (as in canoes) for fun! In Africa so much of their life involved physical activity that the thought of 'sport' for fun was a bit mind-boggling.
Another shocker was the fact men didn't have to pay for their wives! In their culture the men often started working at age 16 in order to buy a bride. Daughters were prized because they brought wealth to their families. When a white woman had twin daughters one of the Africans declared her rich!
The families begin calculating the cost of their daughters and when the young men want to marry, they pay an initial installment (sometimes borrowing from family or friends), and then continue paying installments. Sometimes they start "buying" their brides when the girls are mere children. Later they marry and continue paying to her family. Two problems: they often don't know the set price to begin with (and I got the impression the woman's family milked the young husband for all they could get by with). So the guy may stop making payments only to go home and find his wife gone. Yup she was stolen by her family until he makes the next payment! The women are fine with this as it's all they know. They willingly go back with their family realizing this is the way it works.
The author says for about a third of the year his male nurses are "grass-widowers" and grumpy to boot having to cook for themselves and all.
Children belong to the mother and her brothers. They will always find protection from them. Divorces are rare. Husbands don't want to divorce usually because their wives were so costly. Wives rarely seek divorces because then her family (brothers and uncles) have to repay the money which is often already spent. Fascinating, huh?
Other interesting facts:
The importance of rubber to the economy as it was sought after by the Europeans. The trek through the jungle to obtain it was awful.
Salt was the prized currency for those living in the interior. Money was useless unless they happened to live near a trading post.
Many Europeans took advantage of the Africans' love of alcohol and one person was given possession of an island in exchange for a bottle of brew. Later the Europeans saw the error of giving the Africans alcohol and it was prohibited for use in trading.
Coastal Africans would often enslave those from the interior to work on their plantations. Some went willingly because the interior didn't have native fruit trees and therefore lack of food was common. Some parents gave up their children with hopes they would be taken to places with plenty to eat. Some slaves were offered freedom yet preferred to work for their masters in order to have food and shelter. But for many it was traumatic to be taken forcefully from their families. Slave trade to the New World was especially harsh as the Africans feared they were to become food for white people! They thought those tins of food were their destinies!
The first time one European played a gramophone, the natives stomped it and went for the man (who had to flee for his life) thinking it contained the voices of their ancestors' spirits "which the white man had imprisoned in the box by magic." (pg. 41) Later they came to accept the gramophone and you would find them in nearly every village. "The Africans do not worry about how it can be possible that speech and music come out of a box. This is for them only one of the many incomprehensible things achieved by the white man. 'The white man is an artful fellow,' my Hospital assistant Joseph used to say in regard to machines and such things."
Writing was seen as a form of magic partly because they saw how a written order for supplies (in trading) was filled at the post. They wanted to be able to write something that would "magically" get them salt and pots and cotton cloth and weapons.
I liked the story of when someone at the Mission Station at Lambaréné was showing images from the Passion during Holy Week by a "magic lantern." Schweitzer writes: "When Judas first appeared on the sheet among the disciples, there resounded cries from the background, 'Look out! He will betray you!' When he kissed the Lord in Gethsemane, the onlookers could no longer control themselves. They jumped up, clenched their fists and shouted imprecations and threats. The missionary had to calm them down before he could go on with the display." (pg. 40)
What was the most interesting fact that I recounted? Your thoughts?
The Orthodox Church -- Fighting for Top Honors, Pentarchy, Icons
More from chapter 2 ...
St John Chrysostom is "perhaps the best loved in the Orthodox Church, and the one whose works are most widely read." He's also the Bishop of Constantinople that Theodosius managed to get exiled when the churches were fighting for their rank of importance.
*sigh* Even the churches?
Was this quest for supremacy not already played out and addressed in Scripture with Jesus teaching his disciples that the greatest among you is the one who serves? Why then do we always fall into this temptation to assert ourselves as the top dog? Why this Alexandrian challenge to Constantinople's new place as number two (knocking Alexandria down to third) even in Church history except for the fact it is further proof of man's - even so-called 'righteous' man's - attempts to raise himself above others? The Bible teaches that GOD exalts the humble and resists the proud, however, it appears even these Church leaders gave little importance to Jesus' message!
That said, these are the top 5 - the Pentarchy - of Orthodox in order of honor
Rome -- I wrongly thought the talk against the Pope in the intro meant the Orthodox gave little importance to Rome and by extension the Pope. They just don't give the Pope the supremacy title the Roman Catholics do nor to them does the doctrine of Papal authority apply. To the Orthodox the Pope has a primacy of honor - the first among equals - because Orthodox realize Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome and they believe Peter was the head of the church established there. Also when the "other Patriarchates wavered during the great doctrinal disputes, ...Rome for the most part stood firm." (pg. 28)
Constantinople -- The New Rome (Rome minus the stain of paganism)
Alexandria -- which hated it was bumped from second place when Constantinople was created as the new capital
Antioch -- like the previous three, this city was important to the Roman Empire
Jerusalem -- "added because it was the place Christ had suffered on the Cross and risen from the dead" (pg. 26)
The next section deals with icons and its chief champion, John of Damascus. The author notes that there have been debates even within Christianity concerning their importance. Is it idolatry? Are icons graven images such as are forbidden by God in the Old Testament? The author states the Orthodox position that they are not committing idolatry simply because they are not worshiping a piece of wood or a metal or art. They are using those items as symbols. It is "veneration towards the person depicted."
The second point in favor of icons is probably my favorite: someone who cannot read the Bible, could theoretically see the story of Jesus with the help of icons. I saw this firsthand when we were in Syria at the chapel of St. Paul (this post). In fact we went around the chapel telling Samer the story of Paul by using these pictures hung around the chapel.
The third point is that while "God cannot be represented in His eternal nature" (the Bible says "no one has seen God at any time"), the "Incarnation has made a representational religious art possible: God can be depicted because He became human and took flesh." (pg. 33) As I read in another book explaining this topic some months back, Jesus was an icon!
(I found these from Amber's blog concerning icons. Part 1 and Part 2 -- They are really good!)
Due to the importance of the first seven councils, the Orthodox often refer to themselves as "the Church of the Seven Councils." The author notes, "next to the Bible, it is the seven councils which the Orthodox Church takes as its standard and guide in seeking solutions to the new problems which arise in every generation." (pg. 35)
Thoughts?
St John Chrysostom is "perhaps the best loved in the Orthodox Church, and the one whose works are most widely read." He's also the Bishop of Constantinople that Theodosius managed to get exiled when the churches were fighting for their rank of importance.
*sigh* Even the churches?
Was this quest for supremacy not already played out and addressed in Scripture with Jesus teaching his disciples that the greatest among you is the one who serves? Why then do we always fall into this temptation to assert ourselves as the top dog? Why this Alexandrian challenge to Constantinople's new place as number two (knocking Alexandria down to third) even in Church history except for the fact it is further proof of man's - even so-called 'righteous' man's - attempts to raise himself above others? The Bible teaches that GOD exalts the humble and resists the proud, however, it appears even these Church leaders gave little importance to Jesus' message!
That said, these are the top 5 - the Pentarchy - of Orthodox in order of honor
Rome -- I wrongly thought the talk against the Pope in the intro meant the Orthodox gave little importance to Rome and by extension the Pope. They just don't give the Pope the supremacy title the Roman Catholics do nor to them does the doctrine of Papal authority apply. To the Orthodox the Pope has a primacy of honor - the first among equals - because Orthodox realize Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome and they believe Peter was the head of the church established there. Also when the "other Patriarchates wavered during the great doctrinal disputes, ...Rome for the most part stood firm." (pg. 28)
Constantinople -- The New Rome (Rome minus the stain of paganism)
Alexandria -- which hated it was bumped from second place when Constantinople was created as the new capital
Antioch -- like the previous three, this city was important to the Roman Empire
Jerusalem -- "added because it was the place Christ had suffered on the Cross and risen from the dead" (pg. 26)
The next section deals with icons and its chief champion, John of Damascus. The author notes that there have been debates even within Christianity concerning their importance. Is it idolatry? Are icons graven images such as are forbidden by God in the Old Testament? The author states the Orthodox position that they are not committing idolatry simply because they are not worshiping a piece of wood or a metal or art. They are using those items as symbols. It is "veneration towards the person depicted."
The second point in favor of icons is probably my favorite: someone who cannot read the Bible, could theoretically see the story of Jesus with the help of icons. I saw this firsthand when we were in Syria at the chapel of St. Paul (this post). In fact we went around the chapel telling Samer the story of Paul by using these pictures hung around the chapel.
 | |
| A picture I took in St. Paul's Chapel, Damascus |
The third point is that while "God cannot be represented in His eternal nature" (the Bible says "no one has seen God at any time"), the "Incarnation has made a representational religious art possible: God can be depicted because He became human and took flesh." (pg. 33) As I read in another book explaining this topic some months back, Jesus was an icon!
(I found these from Amber's blog concerning icons. Part 1 and Part 2 -- They are really good!)
Due to the importance of the first seven councils, the Orthodox often refer to themselves as "the Church of the Seven Councils." The author notes, "next to the Bible, it is the seven councils which the Orthodox Church takes as its standard and guide in seeking solutions to the new problems which arise in every generation." (pg. 35)
Thoughts?
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Orthodox Church - Byzantium, Fighting for God, Theosis, Trinity
I eagerly began reading the chapter on Byzantium thinking I would make faster progress, but soon found myself amazed enough by what I was reading that I felt compelled to make note of it. After all I wanted not merely to see how fast I could get through this first book of 2011, but actually learn from it. Orthodoxy is quite a new world for me so why not record notes? (I find I remember information better if I take time to write about it.)
Just as I read the Quran and books about Islam through my own Western, Baptist, Christian lenses, I find I am doing the same with this book. Yes, it's Christianity, however, it is hard for me to come at it completely without thinking of and comparing it to what I've believed all these years. I wish I could approach new topics as a blank slate and read them without biases already in place, but I'm not really good at forgetting all I've known. I hope that makes sense and you keep this in mind as I critique this new (to me) faith. Please don't take it personally. That said, let's proceed through chapter 2 ... or at least the first part. I couldn't even finish the chapter I had so many notes to write!
So I read about Constantine's vision of the cross: in this sign conquer, the inscription supposedly read. Being able to look back at history and knowing how often Christians did use the cross as a reason for and rallying point in their battles, I had to take seriously and mull over this supposed sign from God. I like to compare things to Jesus in the Bible and have a hard time seeing him rallying his followers around the same cross and telling them to conquer in his name. Yes, Jesus spoke of the division between family members because some would reject him while others accepted his message of salvation, but never did I get an impression that Jesus wanted us to pick up swords to kill opponents of his way.
Christianity in Rome went from being a persecuted religion to a tolerated faith (thanks to the Edict of Milan) to a favored religion and then, compliments of Theodosius, fifty years after Constantine's death Christianity was the only officially recognized religion of the Empire! The tables were turned: now it was paganism that was suppressed.
Additionally the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Italy to the Greek city of Byzantium. Constantine named the city after himself and after its "solemn inauguration" he declared that "no pagan rites should ever be performed" in Constantinople. I couldn't help but think of Mecca when I read this. In no way should this holiest city of Islam be stained by a nonMuslim entering it.
The author notes the first council of Nicea clearly demonstrated the new Church and State alliance with one observer reporting that the Emperor presided as if he were "some heavenly messenger of God." (pg. 19) (Muhammad anyone?)
The next section discussed the first six councils. As I read about the Church's attempts to explain the nature of Christ, our relationship with God through Christ, theosis, homoousios, hypostasis, Theotokos, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism and such things I was starting to have such heretical thoughts of does all this really matter? and does God truly care that we fully grasp these things about Jesus? Again I thought back to Scripture and Jesus' words to follow him and he would make us fishers of men. His way seemed much simpler ("my yoke is easy and my burden is light") compared to all these theologians' debates and these various schools of thought.
Is it absolutely essential that we understand the nature of Christ, his relationship to God? I suppose the answer is yes and someone can tell me why, but, goodness, I think of Jesus' words about coming to God with childlike faith and, yes, children question, but do they always fully grasp and understand our answers? Even the book admits the Church didn't intend to explain God for how can God be explained by mere man? So the Church dealt with fencing in the Mystery, that is excluding false facts that would lead people into error and heresy. Part of this is dealing with those Greek words mentioned above.
Theosis is the one that gave me the most pause. I thought I took the Bible literally until I read where the Greek Fathers thought Paul and John were speaking of our (humanity's) 'deification'! "If humans are to share in God's glory, they argued, if they are to be 'perfectly one' with God, this means in effect that humans must be 'deified': they are called to become by grace what God is by nature." That part about "by grace" was extremely helpful in curbing my rising alarm, but then I read St. Athanasius' summary of the purpose of Incarnation: "'God became human that we might be made god'" and couldn't help that Mormon belief of our becoming gods of our own planets came to mind! Also thoughts of the beginning - Garden of Eden, Genesis 3 and Satan tempting Eve and throwing in:
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (vs. 5, emphasis mine)
I think theosis by far was the most troubling part although I couldn't quite grasp why balancing the nature of Christ was of such supreme importance. Then again, I'm not a theologian so ...
Re: the Trinity, I stopped to mull over the classic summary: three persons in one essence recalling how the Old Testament stressed God is one and Jesus said God is spirit and how did those things fit into this Trinitarian summary. Here is something of how my brain reasoned it:
God is One -- but the OT didn't say one what. Jesus said God is spirit so we can't think of God as one person such as we are. So God can be one spirit (essence) but three persons (Father, Son, Spirit) if He chooses. (He could be more than three persons in reality.) Throwing in a healthy dose of "this is a mystery" and "God can't be fully explained by my little mind," I could appreciate the summary.
(This book has over 300 pages and these notes cover the first 23. At this rate, still reading this book in October is entirely possible!)
Thoughts?
Just as I read the Quran and books about Islam through my own Western, Baptist, Christian lenses, I find I am doing the same with this book. Yes, it's Christianity, however, it is hard for me to come at it completely without thinking of and comparing it to what I've believed all these years. I wish I could approach new topics as a blank slate and read them without biases already in place, but I'm not really good at forgetting all I've known. I hope that makes sense and you keep this in mind as I critique this new (to me) faith. Please don't take it personally. That said, let's proceed through chapter 2 ... or at least the first part. I couldn't even finish the chapter I had so many notes to write!
So I read about Constantine's vision of the cross: in this sign conquer, the inscription supposedly read. Being able to look back at history and knowing how often Christians did use the cross as a reason for and rallying point in their battles, I had to take seriously and mull over this supposed sign from God. I like to compare things to Jesus in the Bible and have a hard time seeing him rallying his followers around the same cross and telling them to conquer in his name. Yes, Jesus spoke of the division between family members because some would reject him while others accepted his message of salvation, but never did I get an impression that Jesus wanted us to pick up swords to kill opponents of his way.
Christianity in Rome went from being a persecuted religion to a tolerated faith (thanks to the Edict of Milan) to a favored religion and then, compliments of Theodosius, fifty years after Constantine's death Christianity was the only officially recognized religion of the Empire! The tables were turned: now it was paganism that was suppressed.
Additionally the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Italy to the Greek city of Byzantium. Constantine named the city after himself and after its "solemn inauguration" he declared that "no pagan rites should ever be performed" in Constantinople. I couldn't help but think of Mecca when I read this. In no way should this holiest city of Islam be stained by a nonMuslim entering it.
The author notes the first council of Nicea clearly demonstrated the new Church and State alliance with one observer reporting that the Emperor presided as if he were "some heavenly messenger of God." (pg. 19) (Muhammad anyone?)
The next section discussed the first six councils. As I read about the Church's attempts to explain the nature of Christ, our relationship with God through Christ, theosis, homoousios, hypostasis, Theotokos, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism and such things I was starting to have such heretical thoughts of does all this really matter? and does God truly care that we fully grasp these things about Jesus? Again I thought back to Scripture and Jesus' words to follow him and he would make us fishers of men. His way seemed much simpler ("my yoke is easy and my burden is light") compared to all these theologians' debates and these various schools of thought.
Is it absolutely essential that we understand the nature of Christ, his relationship to God? I suppose the answer is yes and someone can tell me why, but, goodness, I think of Jesus' words about coming to God with childlike faith and, yes, children question, but do they always fully grasp and understand our answers? Even the book admits the Church didn't intend to explain God for how can God be explained by mere man? So the Church dealt with fencing in the Mystery, that is excluding false facts that would lead people into error and heresy. Part of this is dealing with those Greek words mentioned above.
Theosis is the one that gave me the most pause. I thought I took the Bible literally until I read where the Greek Fathers thought Paul and John were speaking of our (humanity's) 'deification'! "If humans are to share in God's glory, they argued, if they are to be 'perfectly one' with God, this means in effect that humans must be 'deified': they are called to become by grace what God is by nature." That part about "by grace" was extremely helpful in curbing my rising alarm, but then I read St. Athanasius' summary of the purpose of Incarnation: "'God became human that we might be made god'" and couldn't help that Mormon belief of our becoming gods of our own planets came to mind! Also thoughts of the beginning - Garden of Eden, Genesis 3 and Satan tempting Eve and throwing in:
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (vs. 5, emphasis mine)
I think theosis by far was the most troubling part although I couldn't quite grasp why balancing the nature of Christ was of such supreme importance. Then again, I'm not a theologian so ...
Re: the Trinity, I stopped to mull over the classic summary: three persons in one essence recalling how the Old Testament stressed God is one and Jesus said God is spirit and how did those things fit into this Trinitarian summary. Here is something of how my brain reasoned it:
God is One -- but the OT didn't say one what. Jesus said God is spirit so we can't think of God as one person such as we are. So God can be one spirit (essence) but three persons (Father, Son, Spirit) if He chooses. (He could be more than three persons in reality.) Throwing in a healthy dose of "this is a mystery" and "God can't be fully explained by my little mind," I could appreciate the summary.
(This book has over 300 pages and these notes cover the first 23. At this rate, still reading this book in October is entirely possible!)
Thoughts?
Sunday, January 2, 2011
2010 Books: Fast Facts, Favorite 5 & More
Bridget did a book stats post that I enjoyed so I decided to do one as well. I am taking after Amber this year and just doing things because I feel like it and the rules are as I say. At least on this blog if not in every aspect of life. :)
Unlike a few bloggers who have nice complete lists of books they read last year, I am not going to post my whole list because I've already noted all the books I've read at the end of every month. For your convenience, if interested you can click on the name of each month below to find those lists and my review of each book.
FAST FACTS:
I read 81 books and finished the most in September (12), June (10) and October (9) while finishing the least in January (3), February, May and November (4 each).
Andrew and I read 4 of the same books this year:
Wild Goose Chase, Primal, Children of Jihad and Stones Into Schools
35 (43%) of my books were Fiction
46 (57%) Non Fiction
Of the Non Fiction books, 6 were Biographies:
2 books I had read previously: Wild Goose Chase and In Search of Eden
5 books I borrowed from my dad's bookshelf; they mostly dealt with the Old Testament with one focusing on the 'rules' of Leviticus. Two of them discussed Jewish customs and culture at the time of Jesus Christ; except for the book on Leviticus, these were rather large books, but I found the information of interest
FIVE FAVORITES
If I had to pick my favorite books of 2010 I'd probably choose these as my top 5.
Stones Into Schools by Greg Mortenson -- a follow-up to Three Cups of Tea which I read in a previous year, this book shares more of Greg's story as he and his team provide schools for remote areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan; I just love reading about the people and culture and challenges - wow!
Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes by Kenneth Bailey -- a fantastic book looking at the gospels through more culturally-appropriate eyes (i.e., not western ones such as many folks like me tend to do)
No God but God by Reza Aslan -- a friend recommended this book and I dawdled on starting it, but once I began I was a bit sad I'd not read it before; I enjoyed the brief history of Islam provided by this Iranian-American man.
Walking the Bible by Bruce Feiler -- I enjoyed the history and contemporary tales from this American Jew as he explored the places mentioned in the first books of the Bible. I loved the interesting people he met along the way too.
and let's throw in at least one fiction book
Though Waters Roar by Lynn Austin. It was an interesting and "cute" way to learn more about some historical events in a fiction setting.
MONTHS -- click the month to see the complete list for that month
January -- read* 3 books; I tend to read fewer books at the begining of the year because I have more bookwork to do for the place I work. At least that's my excuse. Maybe I am too busy doing these types of posts so the reading gets pushed aside.
February -- read 4 books; I finished Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes after having blogged quite a few times about it. Loved that book! Also I read Tea With Hezbollah to Samer via Skype while he's studying in Germany. We discussed the travels of Ted and Carl and the impressions Ted shared in this book.
March -- read 7 books
April -- read 5 books
May -- read 4 books; I started reading a translation of the Quran along with A Christians Guide to the Quran. The Quran notes generated a lot of posts and discussion.
June -- read 10 books; I finished the Quran and also God and Government (447 pages) which had occupied my bookshelf for a year or two. It was actually much more interesting than it sounds ... at least to me.
July -- read 7 books
August -- read 8 books
September -- read 12 books
October -- read 9 books
November -- read 4 books; I recommend Peace Be Upon You by Zachary Karabell if you are looking for a good historical book concerning Muslim, Jewish and Christian coexistence. I learned a lot from this book.
December -- read 8 books
* actually I list my books according to what I finished in a particular month though I may have started the book (such as the Quran) in earlier months
Unlike a few bloggers who have nice complete lists of books they read last year, I am not going to post my whole list because I've already noted all the books I've read at the end of every month. For your convenience, if interested you can click on the name of each month below to find those lists and my review of each book.
FAST FACTS:
I read 81 books and finished the most in September (12), June (10) and October (9) while finishing the least in January (3), February, May and November (4 each).
Andrew and I read 4 of the same books this year:
Wild Goose Chase, Primal, Children of Jihad and Stones Into Schools
35 (43%) of my books were Fiction
46 (57%) Non Fiction
Of the Non Fiction books, 6 were Biographies:
- Jenny Sanford (ex-wife of South Carolina then-governor Mark Sanford; does Argentine mistress ring a bell?)
- Bin Ladens (Growing Up Bin Laden discussed Osama, but moreso was the biography of his first wife, Najwa, and his fourth son, Omar)
- Muhammad (the prophet of Muslims)
- Stephanie Saldaña (concerning her time in Syria mostly)
- Mukhtar Mai (Pakistani woman who fought against those who raped her for a crime her brother allegedly committed)
- Bilquis Sheikh (Pakistani woman who dared to call God, "Father")
2 books I had read previously: Wild Goose Chase and In Search of Eden
5 books I borrowed from my dad's bookshelf; they mostly dealt with the Old Testament with one focusing on the 'rules' of Leviticus. Two of them discussed Jewish customs and culture at the time of Jesus Christ; except for the book on Leviticus, these were rather large books, but I found the information of interest
FIVE FAVORITES
If I had to pick my favorite books of 2010 I'd probably choose these as my top 5.
Stones Into Schools by Greg Mortenson -- a follow-up to Three Cups of Tea which I read in a previous year, this book shares more of Greg's story as he and his team provide schools for remote areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan; I just love reading about the people and culture and challenges - wow!
Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes by Kenneth Bailey -- a fantastic book looking at the gospels through more culturally-appropriate eyes (i.e., not western ones such as many folks like me tend to do)
No God but God by Reza Aslan -- a friend recommended this book and I dawdled on starting it, but once I began I was a bit sad I'd not read it before; I enjoyed the brief history of Islam provided by this Iranian-American man.
Walking the Bible by Bruce Feiler -- I enjoyed the history and contemporary tales from this American Jew as he explored the places mentioned in the first books of the Bible. I loved the interesting people he met along the way too.
and let's throw in at least one fiction book
Though Waters Roar by Lynn Austin. It was an interesting and "cute" way to learn more about some historical events in a fiction setting.
MONTHS -- click the month to see the complete list for that month
January -- read* 3 books; I tend to read fewer books at the begining of the year because I have more bookwork to do for the place I work. At least that's my excuse. Maybe I am too busy doing these types of posts so the reading gets pushed aside.
February -- read 4 books; I finished Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes after having blogged quite a few times about it. Loved that book! Also I read Tea With Hezbollah to Samer via Skype while he's studying in Germany. We discussed the travels of Ted and Carl and the impressions Ted shared in this book.
March -- read 7 books
April -- read 5 books
May -- read 4 books; I started reading a translation of the Quran along with A Christians Guide to the Quran. The Quran notes generated a lot of posts and discussion.
June -- read 10 books; I finished the Quran and also God and Government (447 pages) which had occupied my bookshelf for a year or two. It was actually much more interesting than it sounds ... at least to me.
July -- read 7 books
August -- read 8 books
September -- read 12 books
October -- read 9 books
November -- read 4 books; I recommend Peace Be Upon You by Zachary Karabell if you are looking for a good historical book concerning Muslim, Jewish and Christian coexistence. I learned a lot from this book.
December -- read 8 books
* actually I list my books according to what I finished in a particular month though I may have started the book (such as the Quran) in earlier months
First Book of the Year: The Orthodox Church
I started reading two books yesterday and the very first one of the New Year is The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware. Both Amber and Daniel have recommended this book, it made my Amazon wishlist and I got it within a few days of my adding it there thanks to The Family's Need for Christmas Gift Suggestions for Me! Everybody cheer now.
I can tell this is going to be one of those books I have to read a bit slowly because it's all new to me. I plan to not get bogged down in detailed notes, preferring to jot key thoughts and interesting tidbits that took my attention instead. Feel free to expound upon anything here or in future notes if you wish.
Right off the bat on page one, the author caught my attention when he said "Christians in the west, both Roman and Reformed, generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers. In Orthodoxy, however, it is not merely the answers that are different - the questions themselves are not the same as in the west."
Huh?
Immediately I wanted to know: "what do you mean? what different questions?", but of course I must read the book to find the answers!
Although I've always considered myself as a Protestant to be very different from Catholics, in Orthodox views we "appear as two sides of the same coin" and the Pope is the first Protestant! (p.2)
Orthodoxy means "right belief" and "right glory/worship" and the Orthodox "regard their Church as the Church which guards and teaches the true belief about God and which glorifies Him with right worship." (pg. 8)
Also in the introduction the author mentions briefly that the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches split. This book mainly discusses the latter. He notes how the eastern expansion of the church was thwarted by this division and later the split with the Roman Catholic church kept it from expanding westward. So it moved north...thus you find Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and surrounding areas home to large numbers of Orthodox Christians. (pg.5)
Much of the time the Church was part of the State. (pg. 7) This reminds me of other books I've read where the religion and state were very closely tied in the past. People identified themselves mainly by religious labels in those days.
Although the Patriarch of Constantinople (known as the Ecumenical [or universal] Patriarch) holds a high honorary position, there is no equivalent to the Catholic Pope in Orthodox Christianity. (pg. 7)
In speaking of the Church and how people tend to think of it, the author notes Ignatius "thought of the Church as a Eucharistic society, which only realizes its true nature when it celebrates the Supper of the Lord, receiving His Body and Blood in the sacrament. But the Eucharist is something that can only happen locally - in each particular community gathered round its bishop; and at every local celebration of the Eucharist it is the whole Christ who is present, not just part of Him. Therefore each local community, as it celebrates the Eucharist Sunday by Sunday, is the Church in its fullness." (pg. 13)
Obviously this caught my attention since I noted it, but as to its meaning...I'm still trying to figure it out. "Realizes its true nature" -- what's this? And what does he mean by stressing the "whole Christ" is present rather than merely a part of Him? Why is celebrating the Eucharist "the Church in its fullness"? Maybe the rest of the book sheds light these topics, but for now I'm pondering these words.
The three types of martyrdom was interesting:
1. White -- abandoning everything you love for the sake of God ; I'm guessing this is like a nun or monk possibly even a missionary who leaves his country and the comforts of home and family being near to serve God on a foreign field
2. Green -- freeing yourself of evil desires by fasting, laboring, or "suffer[ing] toil in penance and repentance" -- I remembered a blog discussion a few weeks ago about unmarried Muslim men controlling sexual urges by fasting when I saw this description (note: sex is not an evil desire; however outside of marriage, sex is frowned on and considered sinful in some religions)
3. Red -- enduring "a Cross or death for Christ's sake" (pg.15) -- I believe these are the ones most of us think of when we hear the word martyr (I do anyway); think shaheed in Islam
The Orthodox Church believes councils are important. In fact, "it believes that the council is the chief organ whereby God has chosen to guide His people. ... In the Church there is neither dictatorship nor individualism, but harmony and unanimity; its members remain free but not isolated, for they are united in love, in faith, and in sacramental communion. ... In a true council no single member arbitrarily imposes his will upon the rest, but each consults with the others, and in this way they all freely achieve a 'common mind.'" (pg. 15)
I liked that description of councils actually. I've noticed how the East tends to be more about community and family whereas the West often stresses individualism (although I'd be wrong to say family and society are thrown out the window as family is very important to most of us despite what outsiders may think.) "Free but not isolated" sounds quite good actually.
On the negative side: I wonder if all these men who make up the council (I'm assuming women are not part of this) "freely achieve a 'common mind'" that keeps women as second-class residents of this planet whose main purpose in life is to serve men and breed children. I suppose I'll have to read more and make up my mind.
Thoughts?
I can tell this is going to be one of those books I have to read a bit slowly because it's all new to me. I plan to not get bogged down in detailed notes, preferring to jot key thoughts and interesting tidbits that took my attention instead. Feel free to expound upon anything here or in future notes if you wish.
Right off the bat on page one, the author caught my attention when he said "Christians in the west, both Roman and Reformed, generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers. In Orthodoxy, however, it is not merely the answers that are different - the questions themselves are not the same as in the west."
Huh?
Immediately I wanted to know: "what do you mean? what different questions?", but of course I must read the book to find the answers!
Although I've always considered myself as a Protestant to be very different from Catholics, in Orthodox views we "appear as two sides of the same coin" and the Pope is the first Protestant!
Orthodoxy means "right belief" and "right glory/worship" and the Orthodox "regard their Church as the Church which guards and teaches the true belief about God and which glorifies Him with right worship." (pg. 8)
Also in the introduction the author mentions briefly that the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches split. This book mainly discusses the latter. He notes how the eastern expansion of the church was thwarted by this division and later the split with the Roman Catholic church kept it from expanding westward. So it moved north...thus you find Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and surrounding areas home to large numbers of Orthodox Christians. (pg.5)
Much of the time the Church was part of the State. (pg. 7) This reminds me of other books I've read where the religion and state were very closely tied in the past. People identified themselves mainly by religious labels in those days.
Although the Patriarch of Constantinople (known as the Ecumenical [or universal] Patriarch) holds a high honorary position, there is no equivalent to the Catholic Pope in Orthodox Christianity. (pg. 7)
In speaking of the Church and how people tend to think of it, the author notes Ignatius "thought of the Church as a Eucharistic society, which only realizes its true nature when it celebrates the Supper of the Lord, receiving His Body and Blood in the sacrament. But the Eucharist is something that can only happen locally - in each particular community gathered round its bishop; and at every local celebration of the Eucharist it is the whole Christ who is present, not just part of Him. Therefore each local community, as it celebrates the Eucharist Sunday by Sunday, is the Church in its fullness." (pg. 13)
Obviously this caught my attention since I noted it, but as to its meaning...I'm still trying to figure it out. "Realizes its true nature" -- what's this? And what does he mean by stressing the "whole Christ" is present rather than merely a part of Him? Why is celebrating the Eucharist "the Church in its fullness"? Maybe the rest of the book sheds light these topics, but for now I'm pondering these words.
The three types of martyrdom was interesting:
1. White -- abandoning everything you love for the sake of God ; I'm guessing this is like a nun or monk possibly even a missionary who leaves his country and the comforts of home and family being near to serve God on a foreign field
2. Green -- freeing yourself of evil desires by fasting, laboring, or "suffer[ing] toil in penance and repentance" -- I remembered a blog discussion a few weeks ago about unmarried Muslim men controlling sexual urges by fasting when I saw this description (note: sex is not an evil desire; however outside of marriage, sex is frowned on and considered sinful in some religions)
3. Red -- enduring "a Cross or death for Christ's sake" (pg.15) -- I believe these are the ones most of us think of when we hear the word martyr (I do anyway); think shaheed in Islam
The Orthodox Church believes councils are important. In fact, "it believes that the council is the chief organ whereby God has chosen to guide His people. ... In the Church there is neither dictatorship nor individualism, but harmony and unanimity; its members remain free but not isolated, for they are united in love, in faith, and in sacramental communion. ... In a true council no single member arbitrarily imposes his will upon the rest, but each consults with the others, and in this way they all freely achieve a 'common mind.'" (pg. 15)
I liked that description of councils actually. I've noticed how the East tends to be more about community and family whereas the West often stresses individualism (although I'd be wrong to say family and society are thrown out the window as family is very important to most of us despite what outsiders may think.) "Free but not isolated" sounds quite good actually.
On the negative side: I wonder if all these men who make up the council (I'm assuming women are not part of this) "freely achieve a 'common mind'" that keeps women as second-class residents of this planet whose main purpose in life is to serve men and breed children. I suppose I'll have to read more and make up my mind.
Thoughts?
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Ringing in 2011!
So last night was really good. I met my sister, Will and Michael at their house and we drove to CiC's Pizza where we ate our last meal of 2010 as a family. I ate mostly spinach and veggie pizza..quite good. My parents, Daniel and Lorraine met us there. Andrew didn't get to come because he had a youth event with the church. They needed van drivers since they had five vans going on their weekend trip to Virginia so I've not seen him yet this year. Ha! But most of my family was there. (Little brother was planning to come, but got to feeling bad.) After eating we went to Target and Walmart to check out their clearanced Christmas items. Then we went to my brother's house where we brought in the New Year. His house is in the country and it was quite dark when we arrived. I had one of those "wow, look at the stars" moments such as Amber described so nicely in her first post of 2011. (Unlike her though, I refrained from lying down in the driveway.)
At Daniel and Lorraine's house, we watched a little TV, looked on the computer, played air hockey, checked out their weight room/gym in the basement and had fun taking pictures.
See more of our awesome pictures from last night by clicking here. I put them on Facebook and that is the public link. Go ahead...look. They are cute.
We then looked at the pictures on the big-screen TV. There were more than I posted online and some quite funny that didn't make the cut to be shown publicly. But we surely had fun laughing at them. We watched the last ten minutes of Ryan Seacrest and Dick Clark as they brought in the New Year in New York City. Michael started the countdown with them and then we cheered in 2011.
We watched that for a few more minutes. Then Daniel said Michael wanted to watch Gomer Pyle, USMC so we watched one episode on a DVD Daniel owns. Yes, at 12:15 in the morning. Shazam! :)
We left soon after it ended and I got home at 1:02 A.M. So wild for me. I'm usually at home asleep by 11 each night.
One of the best parts of the evening was the ride home. Michael (the one who called himself a "heat pump" just a few days ago because he tends to be warm when most of us are chilly) actually was cold. Perhaps because he was in short sleeves, yes? (He had taken off the long-sleeved shirt shown above.) He and I were sitting in the backseat and he said "are your hands cold, Susie?" as he grasped them and then said "Oh, they are warm." (Really? My hands are notoriously cold all.the.time.) But I guess they felt warm to him because he was cold. Anyway. He snuggled up close to me and I just wrapped my arms around him keeping him warm and basking in how good it felt to hug that sweet young fellow and what a wonderful way it was to start a new year.
So can any of you top that? ;-) How did you ring in 2011?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)