LIFE IN YEAR ONE: What the World Was Like in First-Century Palestine
By Scott Korb
Riverhead Books, 2010
Review by George R. Pasley
Hear is an easily read, thorough, and enjoyable summary of the entire sum of knowledge about life in Galilee during Jesus’ lifetime.
Scot Korb has devoured everything written on the subject, arranged it into ten easy chapters so that non-scholars can easily understand it, and busy scholars can easily digest it. Furthermore, he makes it funny (Talking about cleanliness- or the lack thereof, due to water shortages, he says “A place like Nazareth, without much of local body of water to speak of…would have remained small. A town can only take sop much concentrated stink.”).
Beyond reading all the literature (though he quotes Crossan and Reed most often), Korb visited Israel and Palestine himself, and interviewed numerous archaeologists. The book has numerous annotations, references to quotes, and along bibliography. Makes a great addition to any church library, and affine introduction to the subject for all biblical scholars.
July 31, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
BLAMELESS
BLAMELESS
By Thom Lemmons
WaterBrook Press, 2007
Review by George R. Pasley
I’ve only once before read a modern Christian novel and was not disappointed, but still I haven’t gone looking for more. I found this one by accident, and it’s premise of being a retelling of the book of Job intrigued me.
It was well done, a romance about two college professors who have been hurt in love before, and are afraid of the consequences of falling in love. The basic plot line was parallel to the plot of the biblical book of Job, but even though there was a preacher in the story, and references to the question of undeserved suffering, one wouldn’t know it was Christian in nature without the “Note to Readers” posted by the author at the end.
Lemmons’ main character was Joe Barnes, a professor with a mysterious past. In the course of one horrible week he lost his job and his reputation, with little hope of finding a replacement for either one of them. His new-found romantic interest is the Dean of Humanities, who could rescue his reputation, but he chooses not to ask her, preferring instead to hope for her love.
The dean, Alexis, discerns that he indeed does love her, but does not step in when by virtue of her authority she could save his reputation. Instead, when she ahs complete freedom to do so, she saves his reputation by demanding that other parties involved tell the truth.
How she did that was a plot twist that I loved. Not a complicated read, but a book that manages to provide a thoughtful definition of what it might mean to be loved by God, and to love in return.
July 30, 2010
By Thom Lemmons
WaterBrook Press, 2007
Review by George R. Pasley
I’ve only once before read a modern Christian novel and was not disappointed, but still I haven’t gone looking for more. I found this one by accident, and it’s premise of being a retelling of the book of Job intrigued me.
It was well done, a romance about two college professors who have been hurt in love before, and are afraid of the consequences of falling in love. The basic plot line was parallel to the plot of the biblical book of Job, but even though there was a preacher in the story, and references to the question of undeserved suffering, one wouldn’t know it was Christian in nature without the “Note to Readers” posted by the author at the end.
Lemmons’ main character was Joe Barnes, a professor with a mysterious past. In the course of one horrible week he lost his job and his reputation, with little hope of finding a replacement for either one of them. His new-found romantic interest is the Dean of Humanities, who could rescue his reputation, but he chooses not to ask her, preferring instead to hope for her love.
The dean, Alexis, discerns that he indeed does love her, but does not step in when by virtue of her authority she could save his reputation. Instead, when she ahs complete freedom to do so, she saves his reputation by demanding that other parties involved tell the truth.
How she did that was a plot twist that I loved. Not a complicated read, but a book that manages to provide a thoughtful definition of what it might mean to be loved by God, and to love in return.
July 30, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
BREAKING THE MISSIONAL CODE
Ed Stetzer and David Putnam, authors
Broadman & Holman, 2006
Review by George Pasley
Over the last few years I’ve read a number of books on evangelism and reaching the unchurched. “Breaking the Missional Code” is my favorite this far. I read it last fall and marked it up with notes, underlines, highlights and questions, then skimmed it again and re-read several chapters to reinforce and revisit my earlier thoughts.
I like it primarily for two reasons: One, it does not insist that a certain theological perspective is necessary for evangelistic success. There are some books out there that do, and they seem more aimed at proving their point than helping you introduce people to Jesus. “Breaking the Missional Code” does say “we must take the Bible seriously” and does reference a theology that does not compromise faith, but it leaves room for considerable differences and it does not overwhelm the reader with its bias.
Second, “Breaking the Missional Code” repeatedly makes list of key points, making it easy to understand and easy to apply.
In particular, page 81 lists four questions we need to ask before setting out on evangelism: 1) where are the unchurched/unreached? 2) Who are the unchurched/unreached? 3) Why are they unchurched/unreached? 4) What is God already doing among the unchurched/unreached? (I found the 4th question especially significant).
These lists are found in most every chapter but others that I found helpful were on page 102, barriers to helping seekers understand and feel safe in worship; page 103, list of important assumptions to make about engaging people in a meaningful way; and page 128, patterns for spiritual formation.
Regarding barriers to worship, I like the way they recognized that even though seekers and believers are looking for different things in worship, and that tension will exist between serving both groups, we all need to worship together to experience the Christian community.
Key principals the book lifts up: 1) North America is a poly cultural context, with many cultures being micro-cultures in a local community. If we want to reach people with our message we need to find them, get to know them, and deliver our message in a way they will understand. 2) Many persons are spiritually receptive but not familiar with Christianity. 3) Discipleship now begins before conversion as people need to experience and participate in the Gospel before committing to it. 4) Evangelism is now relational instead of propositional. 5) Evangelism will require patience since much of it is more about sowing seeds rather than harvesting.
I also like the book because it is, by definition, adaptable. Every culture and context is different. Though the book seems written by persons more familiar with locales of growing populations, it could easily be adapted to other contexts, such as my won, where populations are not growing but the numbers of unchurched persons ARE growing.
While reading the book I occasionally noted questions or critiques, only to have them answered a bit later. My most serious critique is that it emanations “servant evangelism” but them passes it by as if it were insignificant or nor worth pursuing, but perhaps it is only “beside the point.”
Broadman & Holman, 2006
Review by George Pasley
Over the last few years I’ve read a number of books on evangelism and reaching the unchurched. “Breaking the Missional Code” is my favorite this far. I read it last fall and marked it up with notes, underlines, highlights and questions, then skimmed it again and re-read several chapters to reinforce and revisit my earlier thoughts.
I like it primarily for two reasons: One, it does not insist that a certain theological perspective is necessary for evangelistic success. There are some books out there that do, and they seem more aimed at proving their point than helping you introduce people to Jesus. “Breaking the Missional Code” does say “we must take the Bible seriously” and does reference a theology that does not compromise faith, but it leaves room for considerable differences and it does not overwhelm the reader with its bias.
Second, “Breaking the Missional Code” repeatedly makes list of key points, making it easy to understand and easy to apply.
In particular, page 81 lists four questions we need to ask before setting out on evangelism: 1) where are the unchurched/unreached? 2) Who are the unchurched/unreached? 3) Why are they unchurched/unreached? 4) What is God already doing among the unchurched/unreached? (I found the 4th question especially significant).
These lists are found in most every chapter but others that I found helpful were on page 102, barriers to helping seekers understand and feel safe in worship; page 103, list of important assumptions to make about engaging people in a meaningful way; and page 128, patterns for spiritual formation.
Regarding barriers to worship, I like the way they recognized that even though seekers and believers are looking for different things in worship, and that tension will exist between serving both groups, we all need to worship together to experience the Christian community.
Key principals the book lifts up: 1) North America is a poly cultural context, with many cultures being micro-cultures in a local community. If we want to reach people with our message we need to find them, get to know them, and deliver our message in a way they will understand. 2) Many persons are spiritually receptive but not familiar with Christianity. 3) Discipleship now begins before conversion as people need to experience and participate in the Gospel before committing to it. 4) Evangelism is now relational instead of propositional. 5) Evangelism will require patience since much of it is more about sowing seeds rather than harvesting.
I also like the book because it is, by definition, adaptable. Every culture and context is different. Though the book seems written by persons more familiar with locales of growing populations, it could easily be adapted to other contexts, such as my won, where populations are not growing but the numbers of unchurched persons ARE growing.
While reading the book I occasionally noted questions or critiques, only to have them answered a bit later. My most serious critique is that it emanations “servant evangelism” but them passes it by as if it were insignificant or nor worth pursuing, but perhaps it is only “beside the point.”
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
NAMING INFINITY
NAMING INFINITY
By Loren Graham & Jean-Michel Kantor
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009
ISBN 978-0-674-03293-4
Review by George R. Pasley
Here is a fascinating book authored by two historians of science who survey the lives and thoughts of mathematicians involved in the origins Descriptive Set Theory during the first three decades of the Twentieth Century.
Why would I read such a book, and why should you? The books subtitle caught my eye, and aptly sums up the plot of the book,”A True Story of Religious Mysticism and Mathematical Creativity”.
The book purports to be written for mathematical lay persons, and perhaps it is, but I found the math almost impossible to comprehend. Well, maybe that is as it should be, for the mathematicians were all involved in studying infinity, something which is undefined except to say what it is not. None-the-less, the authors did manage to describe, both analytically and poetically, the struggles, conflicts, and insights contributed by all persons involved.
Specifically, Graham and Kantor describe how a trio of French mathematicians (Emil Borel, Henri Lebesgue, & Rene-Louise Baire), raised in a world of ultra-rationalism, made certain insights into Set Theory but then “lost their nerve” when their insights pushed them further and further away from their philosophical worldview. Their teaching, however, influenced a trio of Russian mathematicians (Dmitri Egorov, Nikolai Luzin, & Pavel Florensky) whose specific religious inclinations allowed them to make an imaginative leap where cold rationalism could not go. Florensky in fact was a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, though the particular mystical practice (Name Worshipping) of the trio was considered heretical. Egorov and Luzin founded a school of mathematics, the Moscow School of Mathematics, whose prestige and influence world-wide is still great.
That the Russian trio lived and taught during the Russian Revolution, with Florensky being executed and Egorov dying as a result of imprisonment, and Luzin suffering in academic exile, and that the French trio suffered a host of mental breakdowns, makes the story tragic, compelling, and dramatic. Brief snippets are also provided to a host of the supporting players, some of whom could be the subjects of quite dramatic biographies.
The authors admit to being secularists. The book is not an attempt to solve the science-religion debates. But their final words are pragmatic, tolerant, and open to possibility. Quoting legendary secular mathematician Grothendieck, who insisted mathematicians do not need religion, Graham and Kantor reply:”Our belief, as we have shown here, is that it sometimes can help.”
August 19, 2009
Ketchikan, AK
By Loren Graham & Jean-Michel Kantor
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009
ISBN 978-0-674-03293-4
Review by George R. Pasley
Here is a fascinating book authored by two historians of science who survey the lives and thoughts of mathematicians involved in the origins Descriptive Set Theory during the first three decades of the Twentieth Century.
Why would I read such a book, and why should you? The books subtitle caught my eye, and aptly sums up the plot of the book,”A True Story of Religious Mysticism and Mathematical Creativity”.
The book purports to be written for mathematical lay persons, and perhaps it is, but I found the math almost impossible to comprehend. Well, maybe that is as it should be, for the mathematicians were all involved in studying infinity, something which is undefined except to say what it is not. None-the-less, the authors did manage to describe, both analytically and poetically, the struggles, conflicts, and insights contributed by all persons involved.
Specifically, Graham and Kantor describe how a trio of French mathematicians (Emil Borel, Henri Lebesgue, & Rene-Louise Baire), raised in a world of ultra-rationalism, made certain insights into Set Theory but then “lost their nerve” when their insights pushed them further and further away from their philosophical worldview. Their teaching, however, influenced a trio of Russian mathematicians (Dmitri Egorov, Nikolai Luzin, & Pavel Florensky) whose specific religious inclinations allowed them to make an imaginative leap where cold rationalism could not go. Florensky in fact was a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, though the particular mystical practice (Name Worshipping) of the trio was considered heretical. Egorov and Luzin founded a school of mathematics, the Moscow School of Mathematics, whose prestige and influence world-wide is still great.
That the Russian trio lived and taught during the Russian Revolution, with Florensky being executed and Egorov dying as a result of imprisonment, and Luzin suffering in academic exile, and that the French trio suffered a host of mental breakdowns, makes the story tragic, compelling, and dramatic. Brief snippets are also provided to a host of the supporting players, some of whom could be the subjects of quite dramatic biographies.
The authors admit to being secularists. The book is not an attempt to solve the science-religion debates. But their final words are pragmatic, tolerant, and open to possibility. Quoting legendary secular mathematician Grothendieck, who insisted mathematicians do not need religion, Graham and Kantor reply:”Our belief, as we have shown here, is that it sometimes can help.”
August 19, 2009
Ketchikan, AK
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
PAYBACK
PAYBACK: Debt and the Shadow Side of Life
By Margaret Atwood
O.W.Toad, Ltd, Toronto, 2008
ISBN 978-0-88784-800-1
Review by George R. Pasley
This is a fascinating book, which studies the anthropological, literary, sociological, judicial and even theological history of debt, monetary and otherwise.
For instance, researchers taught captive capuchin monkeys to trade pebbles for cucumber slices. Once all the monkeys were trained, the trainers began giving one monkey grapes instead of cucumber slices. When the remaining monkeys continued to receive cucumber slices, they acted out in numerous ways, including going on a hunger strike. Fairness was the issue here, and it evidently is written into the genetic code of social primates- so quite possibly, it is written into our own.
Or, why do some people use “trespasses” in the Lord’s Prayer and others use “debts”? Atwood reports that Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, has only one word for both English translations (though she does not delve into either Greek or Hebrew).
In a bit of literary and cultural research, Atwood reports on the custom of sin-eating. Quoting Mary Webb (Precious Bane, 1924): “Now it was still the custom at that time, in our part of the country, to give a fee to some poor man after a death, and then he would take bread and wine handed to him across a coffin, and eat and drink, saying, ‘I give easement and rest to thee now dear man, that ye not walk over the fields and down the by-ways. And for thy peace I pawn my own soul.’” (p. 61)
Atwood’s book follows a fascinating rabbit trail dodging a dozen directions, but I found myself deeply engrossed in every wondering thought. My trouble came at the end, when after exposing the shadow side of debt- the things that happen when we don’t pay our debt, or the things that happen when debt cannot be repaid with money (as in, when revenge doesn’t work), Atwood comes to conclusion: pay it forward. She actually does a stellar job of explaining the limitations of justice, the symbiotic nature of lenders and borrowers, and the value of forgiveness. But in the end she offers environmental activism as a solution (though perhaps only as an example) and I found it insufficient- though perhaps it was only too narrow. Still, thought provoking and worthwhile. Good discussion for religion, philosophy, literature, and economic learners.
July 15, 2009
Ketchikan, AK
By Margaret Atwood
O.W.Toad, Ltd, Toronto, 2008
ISBN 978-0-88784-800-1
Review by George R. Pasley
This is a fascinating book, which studies the anthropological, literary, sociological, judicial and even theological history of debt, monetary and otherwise.
For instance, researchers taught captive capuchin monkeys to trade pebbles for cucumber slices. Once all the monkeys were trained, the trainers began giving one monkey grapes instead of cucumber slices. When the remaining monkeys continued to receive cucumber slices, they acted out in numerous ways, including going on a hunger strike. Fairness was the issue here, and it evidently is written into the genetic code of social primates- so quite possibly, it is written into our own.
Or, why do some people use “trespasses” in the Lord’s Prayer and others use “debts”? Atwood reports that Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, has only one word for both English translations (though she does not delve into either Greek or Hebrew).
In a bit of literary and cultural research, Atwood reports on the custom of sin-eating. Quoting Mary Webb (Precious Bane, 1924): “Now it was still the custom at that time, in our part of the country, to give a fee to some poor man after a death, and then he would take bread and wine handed to him across a coffin, and eat and drink, saying, ‘I give easement and rest to thee now dear man, that ye not walk over the fields and down the by-ways. And for thy peace I pawn my own soul.’” (p. 61)
Atwood’s book follows a fascinating rabbit trail dodging a dozen directions, but I found myself deeply engrossed in every wondering thought. My trouble came at the end, when after exposing the shadow side of debt- the things that happen when we don’t pay our debt, or the things that happen when debt cannot be repaid with money (as in, when revenge doesn’t work), Atwood comes to conclusion: pay it forward. She actually does a stellar job of explaining the limitations of justice, the symbiotic nature of lenders and borrowers, and the value of forgiveness. But in the end she offers environmental activism as a solution (though perhaps only as an example) and I found it insufficient- though perhaps it was only too narrow. Still, thought provoking and worthwhile. Good discussion for religion, philosophy, literature, and economic learners.
July 15, 2009
Ketchikan, AK
NOT THE RELIGIOUS TYPE
NOT THE RELIGIOUS TYPE
By Dave Schmelzer
Tyndale, 2008
ISBN 978-1-4143-1583-6
Review by George Pasley
Author Dave Schmelzer is the pastor of a new and rapidly growing church in the Harvard neighborhood of Cambridge, Massachusetts. This little book offers, part by way of personal testimony and part by way of apologetics, an introduction to Christian faith to modern Americans who might consider themselves educated skeptics.
I found it very readable, very persuasive, and invitational. It was neither dogmatic nor polemic. In fact, I finished the book thinking that Schmelzer might be as liberal, theological speaking, than me (though that was only a suspicion- he doesn’t offer any proof of that) but that he is definitely more pious.
Schmelzer’s testimony is the story of how he came to faith, moving from proclaimed atheist to follower of Jesus, while he was a college student. The transformation came as a result of his prayers in search of a God who was concerned about his (David’s) well-being, followed by serious study of the major religions. Thus Schmelzer’s proclaimed faith is one that is all about personal relationship with Jesus, made vibrant by prayer.
But Schmelzer hangs his personal testimony on M. Scott Peck’s four-stage theory of human spiritual and emotional development (which can be found in Peck’s Further Along the Road Less Traveled). Schmelzer neatly summarizes Peck’s theory, and points out that most churches are filled with stage two people, which Schmelzer calls “rules based” (p. 20). “These are the good people who get things done and raise strong families.” (p. 21)
Schmelzer describes stage 3 as the “rebellious stage,” a stage where people ask questions, and says that universities- and even whole societies- are filled with these types. Stage twos and stage threes mistrust each other, for obvious reasons.
But Peck says that stage 3 is in fact a spiritual progression from stage 2, primarily because of the courage to ask questions. Schmelzer grabs this notion and runs with it, but not before admitting that the notion has limitations and can be misunderstood. Then, Schmelzer gets to the great theme of his book: “What stage 3 people usually don’t realize is that there is a stage 4, that there actually are answers to the questions they’ve been answering. You might call this the mystical stage. Here, one suddenly realizes that most of the things we were taught in stage 2 are, in fact, true, but in a richer and more mysterious sense than we would have, or could have, imagined.” (p. 23)
Around this theme of journey from questions to answers rich with mystery, Schmelzer tells stories of his faith and his congregation. Regarding the stories, I personally appreciate the humility with which Schmelzer tells them. He recognizes both the uniqueness of his journey and the inconsistencies of it.
This would be a great book for group discussion, or a good introduction to faith for seekers and inquirers. It might also move some stage two persons as well.
Ketchikan, AK
July 15, 2009
By Dave Schmelzer
Tyndale, 2008
ISBN 978-1-4143-1583-6
Review by George Pasley
Author Dave Schmelzer is the pastor of a new and rapidly growing church in the Harvard neighborhood of Cambridge, Massachusetts. This little book offers, part by way of personal testimony and part by way of apologetics, an introduction to Christian faith to modern Americans who might consider themselves educated skeptics.
I found it very readable, very persuasive, and invitational. It was neither dogmatic nor polemic. In fact, I finished the book thinking that Schmelzer might be as liberal, theological speaking, than me (though that was only a suspicion- he doesn’t offer any proof of that) but that he is definitely more pious.
Schmelzer’s testimony is the story of how he came to faith, moving from proclaimed atheist to follower of Jesus, while he was a college student. The transformation came as a result of his prayers in search of a God who was concerned about his (David’s) well-being, followed by serious study of the major religions. Thus Schmelzer’s proclaimed faith is one that is all about personal relationship with Jesus, made vibrant by prayer.
But Schmelzer hangs his personal testimony on M. Scott Peck’s four-stage theory of human spiritual and emotional development (which can be found in Peck’s Further Along the Road Less Traveled). Schmelzer neatly summarizes Peck’s theory, and points out that most churches are filled with stage two people, which Schmelzer calls “rules based” (p. 20). “These are the good people who get things done and raise strong families.” (p. 21)
Schmelzer describes stage 3 as the “rebellious stage,” a stage where people ask questions, and says that universities- and even whole societies- are filled with these types. Stage twos and stage threes mistrust each other, for obvious reasons.
But Peck says that stage 3 is in fact a spiritual progression from stage 2, primarily because of the courage to ask questions. Schmelzer grabs this notion and runs with it, but not before admitting that the notion has limitations and can be misunderstood. Then, Schmelzer gets to the great theme of his book: “What stage 3 people usually don’t realize is that there is a stage 4, that there actually are answers to the questions they’ve been answering. You might call this the mystical stage. Here, one suddenly realizes that most of the things we were taught in stage 2 are, in fact, true, but in a richer and more mysterious sense than we would have, or could have, imagined.” (p. 23)
Around this theme of journey from questions to answers rich with mystery, Schmelzer tells stories of his faith and his congregation. Regarding the stories, I personally appreciate the humility with which Schmelzer tells them. He recognizes both the uniqueness of his journey and the inconsistencies of it.
This would be a great book for group discussion, or a good introduction to faith for seekers and inquirers. It might also move some stage two persons as well.
Ketchikan, AK
July 15, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
PEARL S BUCK
PEARL S. BUCK: A Cultural Biography
By Peter Conn
Review by George R. Pasley
Cambridge University Press, 1966
ISBN 0-521-56080-2
It has literally been decades since I read any of Pearl’s books, but they obviously made quite an influence on me as I have never forgotten them. When I accidentally came upon Pearl’s West Virginia birthplace, I braked my truck and pulled in for a look. Likewise, when I came upon this volume in our library I immediately checked it out.
The title aptly describes the book. While it is indeed a biography of the first American woman to win a Nobel Prize for literature, the author places all the events of her life, all of her massive volume of work, and all of her achievements within their cultural and historical contexts. This made the biography a worthy (if somewhat wordy) study for students of literature, Asian-American studies, Presbyterian Church history, and feminism.
The biography informs us that Pearl Buck was the daughter of Presbyterian missionaries to China. Conn identifies as major conflicts in Buck’s life: her mother’s submission to her father, her father’s misogyny, the common missionary fundamentalism of the time that failed to see anything of value in Chinese culture, the bias of cultures (both Western and Chinese) that had no understanding of the other culture, and a male-dominated literary world.
Conn goes to great lengths to describe a long-running controversy that Pearl Buck held with the denominational structures of the Presbyterian Church, and as a Presbyterian pastor I found that quite informative. But Conn failed to set the debate in context of the fundamentalist controversies. Though they didn’t actually happen at the same time nonetheless impacted the debates over the purpose of mission that occurred in the prewar era. Likewise, though Conn repeatedly made reference to Buck leaving the church, the book offers no information on her church life or personal faith. She may have indeed given up on God, but Conn seems to equate her severing her missionary ties with losing faith. Perhaps no other information is available, but Conn uncovered a treasure trove of information about every other aspect of Buck’s personal life. It may be the Conn simply doesn’t think in those terms. Even so, the information that Conn did provide was helpful.
I found most enlightening Conn’s careful tracing of Buck’s feminism which surely was foundational though long ignored. Few may know that the publisher of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique consulted Buck prior to it’s publication, that Buck was a outspoken advocate of women’s issues (including birth control), or that the second American woman to women the Nobel Prize for literature, Toni Morrison, looked back at her early reading of Buck’s work and said, “She misled me…and made me feel that all writers wrote sympathetically, empathetically, honestly and forthrightly about other cultures.”
Many have likewise forgotten that for more than a decade Pearl Buck was virtually America’s only source of information on what ordinary Chinese people were like, and that she used her authority of knowledge and voice to combat racism and to promote positive relations between the West and all of Asia.
The thing I remember most vividly about Buck’s writing was the dignity she gave to the peasants in her stories, and Conn lifted that out as major achievement of Buck’s writing. Perhaps that explains why in later life I came to enjoy other writers (Wendell Berry comes to mind) who managed to endow their ordinary characters with the same dignity.
Conn is an admirer of Buck (though he only came to realize that late in life), and he found himself in agreement with many of her opinions, beliefs and causes. But his biography tells Buck’s story honestly, with all her flaws. Buck herself may not have appreciated much of what Conn writes, but those who appreciate the honesty with which Buck depicted life in her novels surely will.
George R. Pasley
July 10, 2009
Ketchikan, AK
By Peter Conn
Review by George R. Pasley
Cambridge University Press, 1966
ISBN 0-521-56080-2
It has literally been decades since I read any of Pearl’s books, but they obviously made quite an influence on me as I have never forgotten them. When I accidentally came upon Pearl’s West Virginia birthplace, I braked my truck and pulled in for a look. Likewise, when I came upon this volume in our library I immediately checked it out.
The title aptly describes the book. While it is indeed a biography of the first American woman to win a Nobel Prize for literature, the author places all the events of her life, all of her massive volume of work, and all of her achievements within their cultural and historical contexts. This made the biography a worthy (if somewhat wordy) study for students of literature, Asian-American studies, Presbyterian Church history, and feminism.
The biography informs us that Pearl Buck was the daughter of Presbyterian missionaries to China. Conn identifies as major conflicts in Buck’s life: her mother’s submission to her father, her father’s misogyny, the common missionary fundamentalism of the time that failed to see anything of value in Chinese culture, the bias of cultures (both Western and Chinese) that had no understanding of the other culture, and a male-dominated literary world.
Conn goes to great lengths to describe a long-running controversy that Pearl Buck held with the denominational structures of the Presbyterian Church, and as a Presbyterian pastor I found that quite informative. But Conn failed to set the debate in context of the fundamentalist controversies. Though they didn’t actually happen at the same time nonetheless impacted the debates over the purpose of mission that occurred in the prewar era. Likewise, though Conn repeatedly made reference to Buck leaving the church, the book offers no information on her church life or personal faith. She may have indeed given up on God, but Conn seems to equate her severing her missionary ties with losing faith. Perhaps no other information is available, but Conn uncovered a treasure trove of information about every other aspect of Buck’s personal life. It may be the Conn simply doesn’t think in those terms. Even so, the information that Conn did provide was helpful.
I found most enlightening Conn’s careful tracing of Buck’s feminism which surely was foundational though long ignored. Few may know that the publisher of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique consulted Buck prior to it’s publication, that Buck was a outspoken advocate of women’s issues (including birth control), or that the second American woman to women the Nobel Prize for literature, Toni Morrison, looked back at her early reading of Buck’s work and said, “She misled me…and made me feel that all writers wrote sympathetically, empathetically, honestly and forthrightly about other cultures.”
Many have likewise forgotten that for more than a decade Pearl Buck was virtually America’s only source of information on what ordinary Chinese people were like, and that she used her authority of knowledge and voice to combat racism and to promote positive relations between the West and all of Asia.
The thing I remember most vividly about Buck’s writing was the dignity she gave to the peasants in her stories, and Conn lifted that out as major achievement of Buck’s writing. Perhaps that explains why in later life I came to enjoy other writers (Wendell Berry comes to mind) who managed to endow their ordinary characters with the same dignity.
Conn is an admirer of Buck (though he only came to realize that late in life), and he found himself in agreement with many of her opinions, beliefs and causes. But his biography tells Buck’s story honestly, with all her flaws. Buck herself may not have appreciated much of what Conn writes, but those who appreciate the honesty with which Buck depicted life in her novels surely will.
George R. Pasley
July 10, 2009
Ketchikan, AK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)