Repository of random (reading) thoughts

It's been a while since I've gotten back to blogging regularly. Part of it is I'm still in mourning for my dad. I think grief is going to be a steady stream that flows below the surface. It may rise or ebb, but it's always there. Another part is having too many thoughts in my head to organize in a coherent manner and reading too many books simultaneously. So in lieu of a pensieve, this post will be the repository for the random thoughts that have been swirling in my brain based on my recent reading.

I wonder if my lack of concentration is due to my use of social media. I'm halfway through Reader, Come Home by Maryanne Wolf. (Ironically I learned of the book via @scifri on Twitter.) Wolf is a neuroscientist and reading specialist. She is concerned that too much screen reading is impairing our ability to read deeply which impairs our ability to think and feel deeply. She is coming from an evolutionary perspective, so she believes that our reading brains evolved over time. Therefore, we could devolve and lose them, making it more and more difficult to comprehend written sources, thus reducing our knowledge base as individuals and a society. Obviously as a Christian, I don't believe my reading brain evolved. I also believe that just as a God preserved his Word in written form, he will preserve the readers too. After all he created our brains to begin with. However, this doesn't let us off the hook. We should be wise in how we use our minds and use them well.

 I picked up Identifying the Seed by Robert McKenzie last night. This book examines and evaluates the differences between dispensationalism and covenant theology. McKenzie was formerly dispensational and is now covenantal so he is familiar with both sides. This will be a timely read given John MacArthur's rather startling statements about Bible interpretation and his inaccurate characterization IMO of covenant theology as "latent antisemitism." (Start at the 52 minute mark of his interview with Ben Shapiro.) I respectfully but strongly disagree with MacArthur on both points, among others. While the end times is seen as the main difference between the 2 camps, it goes much deeper to hermeneutics and ecclesiology. McKenzie believes ecclesiology is primary; does God have one people or two? I'm concerned that if one thinks reformed theology is just a big pot containing everyone who believes the 5 points, then one could think that all 5-pointers are more or less interpreting scripture the same way and arriving at more or less the same conclusions. But the 2 camps are very different in this regard. This could lead to conflicting input especially when interpreting passages on who are God's people. By all means, use multiple resources from different schools of thought, but go in with your eyes open knowing that there will be differences in biblical interpretation depending on the source.

Finally I've started Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James Loewen. I've done enough digging in American history of late, particularly as it relates to Asian immigration and naturalization, that I'm disenchanted with the exceptionalist view of American history that I was taught. It's wrong to slander people, but it is equally wrong to sweep flaws under the rug and present a sanitized but dishonest picture. Both are violations of the 9th commandment IMO. Thus, I want a refresher course in history but without the rose-colored glasses. In the 1st chapter alone, I learned that Helen Keller was an ardent socialist and helped found the ACLU. I never read that in the children's biography I read. I also learned more about Woodrow Wilson's military campaigns in Central America and his segregation of the civil service, which was also new to me. I can't recall where I heard it, but someone (Sproul?) said that when it comes to theology, the question should not be "How does it make me feel? ", but "Is it true?" I think the same applies to history.

Could it be that we don’t want to think badly of Woodrow Wilson? We seem to feel that a person like Helen Keller can be an inspiration only so long as she remains uncontroversial, one-dimensional. We don’t want complicated icons. “People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions,” Helen Keller pointed out. “Conclusions are not always pleasant.” (pg. 35)