|
| meHome
| meSelf | meBooks
| meWork |
meDigital
| meNotepad | meContact |
| On
this page: Tolkien Scottish Independence Paradigm Shift Beyond Modern Times The Bible Too Much Religion? No More Religion? Missing The Point One Thing is Certain: Nothing Is Certain More book reviews in the archive. |
Books... OK, it was not Laurens Jansz. Coster, a fellow Dutchman, but Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg who invented movable type printing in the 15th century. Holland-Germany: 0-1. But hey, the pope can be German too, so what? Nevertheless, The Netherlands used to have a culture of reading, just like Scotland. And we ourselves have always liked reading. So here are a few words about our reading events. Some books we have read together, some are more like Martin, some more like Nelleke. We happily leave it to your own imagination to work that out... |
           |
Tolkien First published 11/04/2008
J.R.R. TOLKIEN, The Hobbit / The Lord Of The Rings / The Silmarillion / Tree Of Leaf (various editions & translations) HUMPHREY CARPENTER, Het leven van J.R.R. Tolkien (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1978) MICHAEL WHITE, Tolkien: A Biography (London: Abacus, 2002) 2nd ed. STRATFORD CALDECOTT, Secret Fire. The Spiritual Vision of J.R.R. Tolkien (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2003) Tolkien entered my life with The Hobbit. My father got the Dutch translation for his birthday, just before the family went on holiday. Only at the very end of it he could have his own book, because all his six children were reading that to pieces... They bought him a new copy. Ever since there has been some Tolkien reading and rereading in my life. It is a bit poor to label his books as 'fantasy'. Although initially Tolkien intended to write bed-side stories to entertain his children, he ended up creating an impressive virtual reality, decades before any chip was produced. Reading through his biographies or the comments by Caldecott you will discover more and more layers in the texts. That goes far beyond a simple allegory, such as the one saying that Gondor stands for the free West and Mordor for the communist East block. Even if you could interpret the story in that direction, it would not be the only layer of meaning. I think this is what makes Tolkien's writings truly great literature: the mastery of language, the impressive imagination and the many layers within the story. Worth reading again and again! What is Tolkien's message? I do not think you can give an unambiguous answer to that. Tolkien did not write to bring a certain message across. Of course there are lots of messages to be found in the texts. Yet I think the main theme is the one that keeps recurring: the end of the Third Era of Middle-earth. This reflects the main shift in Western culture starting in the First World War, gaining maximum impetus from the 1960s on and still not fully completed in our (post-)postmodern days. Tolkien was a very Victorian man all through his life, but his experiences in the trenches of Flanders' fields, and perhaps even before that time, must have made him realise that imperial times were coming to an end and that society and culture would profoundly change. At least, that is how I read his great tales. The surprising thing about it is, that in the end it will be the little folk, living their common lives, who will decide the course of history, even unknowingly. That is a radically democratic view. In a curious way, being an old-fashioned professor, Tolkien also had the prophetic view that the times were dramatically changing in a way they had not done for many, many centuries. And what about the films? I think Peter Jackson has done a great job. Of course, some things differ (considerably) from the book - Glorfindel turned from an Elfen lord into a sexy princess, the Houses of Healing are missing, and more - but that's what happens in films. In geneal I think the films express a similar spirit as the books, although sometimes bypassing Tolkien's typical Victorian ways of thinking. And I really enjoyed watching all three of them. Reading tip: just keep re-reading all of Tolkien. Back to top |
 |
Scottish
Independence First published 11/04/2008
DENNIS MACLEOD & MICHAEL RUSSELL, Grasping The Thistle. How Scotland Must React to the Three Challenges of the Twenty First Century (Glendaruel: Argyll, 2006) Scottish independence is a hot issue, but also something that can be ridiculed. 'Back to the days of William Wallace' (Mel Gibson as Braveheart just missed the point, of course) and that kind of 19th century romantic nationalism. Michael Russell, following the May 2007 elections Minister for Environment in the Scottish Government, and Dennis MacLeod, multinational entrepreneur, make an equally passionate as rational plea for Scottish independence. They see it as "a positive force for change" and sketch the outlines for a "democracy of the people" to replace the current, worn-out system of power locked up in political parties. Coming from outside Scotland, and even outside the UK, this is interesting stuff. Even if MacLeod seems to be stronger on free enterprise principles than I would like, and even if 'people's democracy' could not exactly match what most people want, the book is still radical and inspiring enough to make you think. Reading tip: read it, put it away, observe the news in Scotland, and then read it again. Back to top |
 |
Paradigm
Shift First published 11/04/2008
CALLUM G. BROWN, The Death Of Christian Britain. Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000 (London: Routledge, 2007) 8th ed. There has been a major paradigm shift in western culture. That is why churches are marginalised and faith gets deconnected from actual life. Nice to know. But how exactly did that happen? Wasn't secularisation a gradual process, starting in the days of good old Enlightenment, coming to full speed through 19th century industrialisation and continuing into our days? No, says the social and cultural historian Callum G. Brown. It was a very sudden change, starting in the 1960s - or more exactly: 1959, the year after Billy Graham's big campaign in the UK. Brown analyses the British situation. The American scene is quite different. But knowing the Dutch context I can certainly advise Dutch people to read this book. Not everything simply fits - for example, there is nothing in it about 'verzuiling' - but 'im großen und ganzen' Brown's analysis explains a lot about The Netherlands too. Reading tip: please do read it. Back to top |
 |
Beyond
Modern Times First published 11/04/2008
Updated 25/07/2009 EDDIE GIBBS & RYAN K. BOLGER, Emerging Churches. Creating Christian Communities in Postmodern Cultures (London: SPCK, 2006) Emerging churches are hot, basically because they are cool. A lot happens out in cyberspace. Gibbs & Bolger wrote a thorough review after five years of research, mostly in the UK and the USA. Their major point is that emerging churches actively and positively take up the challenge of being followers of Jesus Christ in a postmodern culture. This is surprising news for liberals, since most of the emerging churches' leaders - who prefer not to be leaders - come from fairly evangelical backgrounds. But they, of all people, make it clear that the church has to rebuild its very message, not just adapt the method of communicating it, if it wants to have any relevance for today's world. And of course the old labels, such as 'orthodox', 'evangelical' or 'liberal', have already faded and lost most of their significance. Although very dispersed, small and different, emerging churches have three core practices in common: (1) identifying with the life of Jesus (instead of the traditional focus on his suffering and death only), primarily by starting from Jesus' preaching of God's kingdom; (2) transforming secular space by encountering and accepting postmodern culture and finding a new spirituality in there; (3) living as a community, based on personal commitment to direct social action and mutual support. I am both enthousiastic and critical about the book. Probably that is exactly what Gibbs and Bolger want: making people think. I am not sure if they have fully understood the French postmodernist philosophers, and surely they do not give any account for the effects of 9/11 on postmodernism. I also recognise some of the emerging churches' themes and practices as things I have met with before in liberal theology or in christian base communities. Yet, I do not think this seriously undermines their major point: modernity has ended and the churches must make haste in adapting to a totally new cultural situation. Marcus Borg - not really an evangelical - takes exactly the same stance: either christianity reinvents itself, or it will disappear. Also Erik Borgman, lay Dominican and Edward Schillebeeckx' biographer, emphasises that the true place of theology should be in the midst of contemporary culture. Reading tip: if you are really tired of keeping up structures that do not work anymore and you are in for a refreshingly fresh view, do read this book. Back to top |
                    |
The
Bible First published 11/04/2008,
updated 16/04/2008
Biblia Hebraica / Septuaginta / Novum Testamentum Graece / Das Alte Testament verdeutscht (Martin Buber & Franz Rosenzweig) / Bijbel (many translations) / Holy Bible (many translations) / Rembrandt bijbel (several translations) / Woord voor woord kinderbijbel (Karel Eykman & Bert Bouman) / Kijkbijbel (Kees de Kort) Pretty obvious to put the Bible on your list of favourite books if you are a minister of religion. But that is not why it is here. It was the other way around: because the stories about the people of Israel and about Jesus kept coming back and continued to fascinate, we both started to study theology. Which increased our fascination. Especially the opportunity to read the original languages - on basic level - was enriching, enlightening and sometimes disenchanting. We still have not read all of it. The four gospels and the book of Acts: yes. Apocalypse and most of Paul's letters: yes. At the end of this year we will have read all of the five books of Moses (some parts you always skip). The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles: yes. Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther, Daniel: yes. The book of minor prophets: most of them. Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel: only fragmentary (shame). Psalms: at some point we must have read them all. So in our - mostly - daily readings we can still find something new. The version we are most happy with is the new Dutch translation by Pieter Oussoren (cum suis!), the Naardense bijbel. It keeps as close as possible to the original Hebrew and Greek and still reads as proper Dutch (as opposed to 'Hebutch' or 'Grutch'). I think this translation is as unique as was the 'verdeutschung' of the Tenakh by Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig. Reading the Bible with our children was much helped by the availability of Kees de Kort's wonderful pictures (Kijkbijbel) and the fresh re-telling of the stories by Karel Eykman, illustrated by Bert Bouman (Woord voor woord). Yet again, I think that these two Dutch productions are unique. Reading tip: just keep reading. Back to top |
 |
Too
Much Religion? First published 11/04/2008
Updated 29/06/2008 JAN SIEBELINK, Knielen op een bed van violen (Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij, 2006) 32nd ed. Jan Siebelink's book caused a hype in The Netherlands: thirty-two editions in less than a year, plus loads of publicity. Is religion back in public space? The book describes the life of the author's father who, after a very personal visionary experience, became heavily involved in a very orthodox, sectarian group (in Dutch also known as 'conventikel'), which alienated him in a tragic way from the wife and children he loved. Nelleke read this book in one go, but Martin struggled through it and did not finish it. We both agree it is a wonderfully well written book. In the midst of all the disposable language we have to take in every day this was a true relief. Beautiful and clear Dutch! Nelleke was simply carried away and strongly moved by the story. Martin had a depressing feeling from the moment brother Mieras entered the tale. That feeling did not disappear and finally closed the book - an experience I have only had once before while reading Bordewijk (supposedly one of Siebelink's favourite writers). Yet we both have a positive opinion about this book: very well told and written and much more profound than the simply dismissive way authors like Maarten 't Hart treat orthodox religion. About the orthodox religion itself we are not so positive: it crushes people instead of liberating them. But that is something we already knew. Back to top |
 |
No
More Religion? First published 11/04/2008
Updated 25/07/2009 KLAAS HENDRIKSE, Geloven in een God die niet bestaat. Manifest van een atheïstische dominee (Amsterdam: Nieuw Amsterdam, 2007) 5th ed. Klaas Hendrikse is a minister in the Protestant Church in The Netherlands (PKN) and not ashamed of the label 'liberal'. In fact he is very much a liberal in his views on faith and theology. The core of his book is about being honest to God by accepting that there is not a God existing out there or up there, but only a God who 'happens' among and through people. Actually, I do not see why there is such an upheaval about this book. It is relevant and honest, based on an authentic personal faith. But to be fair, John A.T. Robinson wrote similar things in 1963. I think it is time for orthodox fellow christians to accept the underlying cultural shift (cf. Emerging Churches) and find their own answers to it. Right now PKN officials seems to go the same silly way as the Gereformeerde Kerken (GKN) did in the Geelkerken case in 1926: denying a legitimate question, instead of answering it. It is not fair to treat Hendrikse as a conductor for the unanswered questions of the PKN's orthodox partition. Reading tip: read the book (you may need to learn Dutch first), be honest about it - and then please do give Hendrikse any support you can in the upcoming ecclesiastical battles. Back to top |
 |
Missing
The Point First published 16/07/2008
Updated 18/07/2008 MICHAEL HAMPSON, God Without God. Western Spirituality without the Wrathful King (Ropley: O Books, 2008) Michael Hampson wrote a very disappointing book. As it was announced it promised to offer a fresh approach of christian faith and spirituality, which is greatly needed. However, it turns out to be partly a summary of the catholic catechism and partly a rant about the wrongs of protestantism. Hampson fails to make a proper analysis of the cultural shift to which western society and spirituality are subject - that is the move from modernism to postmodernism - and consequently uses a confused and confusing concept of rationalism. Sometimes he relies on typically modern ways of arguing, sometimes he seems to reach beyond that, but on the whole his arguments are unclear and unbalanced. I am not so sure if his understanding of Roman catholic tradition is adequate; it seems much more diverse and layered than he seems to suggest. Hampson is not burdened with any sufficient insight in protestantism outwith his own limited anglican tradition either - all protestants are just evangelical fundamentalists or sectarians - nor does he have any helpful clue about the bible. In the first chapter, about God, Hampson sets off with the old familiar opposition between the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Of course he does not say so. He first describes God as "the ground of all being and the essence of all that is good" - courtesy to Paul Tillich - and he explicitly rejects the image of God as a "wrathful, autocratic, vengeful and demanding king". But - in the end we can only see God in the right perspective because Jesus has taught us to call God our Father - as if that were something alien to Jesus' own bible, the Tanakh, which christians call Old Testament. Without blinking an eye the doctrine of the trinity is simply read into the biblical texts as if that were evident too (in reality it took the church more than three centuries to reach that point). This is, unfortunately, an old common sin in christian theology: cutting out Israel from christian faith. It may seem obvious that living by a 'new covenant' automatically makes the 'old covenant' void. However, for the 12 million Jewish people living today that 'old covenant' is still the only one. Also, the apostle Paul emphasised that the church should know its place, being 'a shoot grafted on the root of Israel' (Romans 11:16-18). Excluding Israel from God's plan is anti-judaism and from pogroms and holocaust we should have learned where that ultimately can lead to. Once we know how to make the Jewish people non- (or not really) existing, we can do exactly the same to others, eg. women, gays and lesbians, ethnic minorities, disabled people etcetera - as has happened again and again. Thus the way we relate to Israel becomes a kind of litmus test for the way we treat anyone 'strange'. Concerning the bible all Hampson does is collating traditional, slightly outdated, views. Despite a seemingly fresh approach he fails to produce anything even coming close to sound biblical theology. Despite an honest attempt to learn to know the God of Israel, in the end the Old Testament is degraded to just an interesting overview of world religion, ie. only a preparation for the Gospel to follow. For no good reason the Hebrew Name of God is written as 'yahweh/elohim', confusing historical-critical source analysis of biblical texts with biblical theology, and abandoning almost two thousand years of carefully replacing the ineffable Name by words like 'Dominus', 'Lord' or 'Eternal'. The bible never had two 'Gods' in mind, but instead offers a world-wide mosaic of thousands of different live encounters with the One God. Describing the contents of the Old Testament Hampson simply skips the Jewish arrangement of books in Torah/Law, Nevi'im/Prophets and Khetuvim/Writings - surely Jesus' own arrangement too - and consequently he repeats the old mistake of calling books like Joshua, Judges or Kings 'historical' while they were actually written as prophetic books. And inescapably the Old Testament commandments are labeled - or libeled? - "legalistic" again, as opposed to the "new commandment" of love given by Jesus. Although he does not voice that too loud, in fact Hampson makes the New Testament replace the whole of the Old. I'd rather go with the majority of protestant creeds' emphasis on the unity of the bible. (Yes, I know many protestants did, do and will replace the Old with the New, but that does not mean they have properly understood their own spiritual roots.) And of course the Pharisees are still the bad guys, although Jesus himself was probably part of the same movement and all his disputes fit perfectly well in the common critical pattern of rabbinic learning and teaching in the 1st century. And so on - but I'll keep it to this. Actually, the chapter on the bible closed the book for me. After that I lost interest. Only the chapter on Eros caught some of my attention again. It reflects a truly personal journey through life and offers a lot of information too. Of course you don't need to agree to every conclusion on the subject. My conclusion is that Hampson obviously feels a need to dismiss protestantism as simply bad evangelism and a deviation from 'the whole of western spirituality', and to illustrate how the holy motherchurch will save christian faith. A poor example of critical analysis, I would say, and merely an affirmation of the traditional divisions fostered by modernity. Reading tip: just don't. Back to top |
 |
One Thing Is Certain: Nothing Is Certain First published 19/11/2009
MARK VERNON, After Atheism. Science, Religion, and the Meaning of Life (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan: 2008) This book is one of the rare examples where the blurb on the back actually covers the content. It is ‘well-reasoned’, people will be ‘enchanted’ by it and the book indeed offers ‘much, much more’. That is, if the reader dares to accept the fundamental uncertainty of all that is. And that, of course, is a spiritual act. To let Mark Vernon take you to that point, requires the reader to make some effort. The book is really intelligent, but sometimes slightly intimidating. I had to look up a few words, and that was not because English is my second language. Vernon clearly explains how much of modern science can get stuck in scientism, the blunt assumption that reason could unambiguously analyse and define the whole of reality. The wee wave of neo-atheism, which affected a number of London buses for example, is caught in the same trap. Vernon makes a very clear point, following some truly great scientists and thinkers in past and present, for accepting a profound sense of wondernment as underlaying our human reason. Because there really is more, Horatio… Vernon makes it equally clear how established Christian religion is trapped in exactly the same misunderstanding. In its language, liturgy, doctrines and practice it seeks certainty and hides the fundamental unknowability of God behind a set of reasonable beliefs. Silence and meditation -- both as committed and honest exercises of the mind -- would be better tools to approach the mystery. For the rest indeed is silence… Vernon’s plea is for a religious agnosticism to lead us beyond the positions and trenches of modernist rationality. I fully agree, even if I choose to work inside a church. An intelligent and at the same time spiritual acceptance of the world’s wonder and God’s unknowability is the only way forward as I can see it. (Of course thus the question will always be how far one is still inside a church, or how much space will be allowed to move outwith the traditional concepts.) Only one minor comment: Vernon’s thoughts on death are very helpful and genuine, but I would not equal that to the problem of evil. Evil is about the things we do or do not and why that is. (Any suggestions out there?) Death is what awaits us all at the end of our journey, and actually it makes us alive as long as we are underway. And a remark. It is obvious that when Vernon refers to the church, it is about the Anglican church. At some point I did wonder if he would have written exactly the same had he been more familiar with the Reformed tradition. Reformed tradition is more focussed on the preaching from the Bible, which is most likely a serious obstacle for the kind of language that leaves space for the mystery of reality and God's unknowability, but it also includes more mystical elements, with a particular own language, which might actually be helpful towards a religious agnostic approach. So, definitely YES -- this book is absolutely a MUST READ! Back to top |
Nederlandse
tekst |
