Broken Vessels (A Brief Book Review)

This is a collection of 22 essays written by Andre Dubus between 1977-1990.

The essays are personal to the author and are short stories of different times in his life. The first is lighthearted and funny, relating what life was like living in a rented house and taking care of the landlord’s stubborn and stupid sheep.

And Christ had called us his flock, his sheep; there were pictures of him holding a lamb in his arms. His face was tender and loving, and I grew up with a sense of those feelings, of being a source of them: we were sweet and lovable sheep. But after a few weeks in that New Hampshire house, I saw that Christ’s analogy meant something entirely different. We were stupid helpless brutes, and without constant watching we would foolishly destroy ourselves.
~”Out Like a Lamb”, page 4

From there the essays get more intimate as Dubus writes about his bullied childhood, his beloved kids, his precarious writing career, and the life-altering accident that took one of his legs. The title for the book comes from the last and most moving essay which, in part, he describes the trials of learning to live without the full use of his legs.

One morning in August of 1987, shuffling with my right leg and the walker, with Mrs. T (the physical therapist) in front of me and her kind younger assistants, Kathy and Betty, beside me, I began to cry. Moving across the long therapy room with beds, machines, parallel bars, and exercise bicycles, I said through my weeping: I’m not a man among men anymore and I’m not a man among women either. Kathy and Betty gently told me I was fine. Mrs. T said nothing, backing ahead of me, watching my leg, my face, my body. We kept working. I cried and talked all the way into the small room with two beds that are actually leather-cushioned tables with a sheet and a pillow on each, and the women helped me onto the table, and Mrs. T went to the end of it, to my foot, and began working on my ankle and toes and calf with her gentle strong hands. Then she looked up at me. Her voice has much peace whose resonance is her own pain she moved through and beyond. It’s in Jeremiah, she said. The potter is making a pot and it cracks. So he smashes it, and makes a new vessel. You can’t make a new vessel out of an old one. It’s time to find the real you.
~”Broken Vessels”, page171-172

It’s a great book and well worth buying and well worth reading. I give it 5 out of 5 stars.

Find it on Amazon

The Dictator’s Handbook (Book Review)

This is a somewhat amusing book looking at the differences (or better yet, similarities) between dictatorships and democracies.

Basically, according to the authors, potential political leaders need to worry most about one thing: you can not be a monolithic leader; you will have to keep a certain group of people happy in order to stay in power. How large that essential group, or coalition is, depends on what kind of government you want to form– democracy (large coalition) or dictatorship (small coalition).

In the first chapter, five basic rules are given for leaders to succeed in any system: “1) Keep your winning coalition as small as possible; 2) Keep your nominal selectorate (non-essential supporters) as large as possible; 3) Control the flow of revenue; 4) Pay your key supporters just enough to keep them loyal; 5) Don’t take money out of your supporter’s pockets to make the people’s lives better.” (If you’ve ever wondered why some governments, like the Cambodian government, don’t crack down on corruption, #5 would be your answer.)

In a dictatorship the coalition is small. It is imperative for the dictator to maintain strict control over the bank accounts so that he, and he alone, will be able to pay off the necessary people who can keep him in power, or take him out (like a military commander for example).

In a democracy the essential group of backers will be much larger, so the option of simply paying them off is much too expensive. Here the leader buys loyalty through programs and policies.

The book uses several real world examples to back the points made. For example, Samuel Doe of Liberia, who, although being an unskilled soldier, managed to assassinate the president and take control of the country.

“Doe had no idea what a president was supposed to do and even less idea of how to govern a country. What he did know was how to seize power and keep it: remove the previous ruler; find the money; form a small coalition; and pay them just enough to keep them loyal. In short order, he proceeded to replace virtually everyone who had been in the government or the army with members of his own small Krahn tribe, which made up only about 4 percent of the population. He increased the pay of army privates from $85 to $250 per month. He purged everyone he did not trust. Following secret trials, he had no fewer than fifty of his original collaborators executed.”
~page 22, chapter 2, “Coming to Power”

Sounds a lot like how the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia in the ’70s.

Samuel Doe did not fair well though. He too was taken out of power, tortured (to reveal where all the money was), then cut up, cooked, and eaten. Mmm mm.

Overall I thought it was a decent book. However, I did find it to be over-simplified and too repetitive. I think, with it being nearly three hundred pages long, it could easily be a hundred pages shorter and thus a lot less monotonous.

I give it 3 out of 5 stars.

Find it on Amazon

Update October 2016…

Here’s a good video which lays out the book in under 20 minutes…

Four Pinheads or Why We Need Human Teachers

When you listen to and read one thinker, you become a clone… two thinkers, you become confused… ten thinkers, you’ll begin developing your own voice… two or three hundred thinkers, you become wise…
~Tim Keller

But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.
~1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 (NASB)

One of the gifts God gave to us is teachers (Ephesians 4:11). And He gave teachers to equip the saints for the work of service and to build up the body of Christ. The bible tells us to appreciate and highly esteem these teachers in love. This, of course, applies to the living breathing teachers in our lives now, but also to our teachers long since passed.

In 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 Paul is rebuking four kinds of pinheads…

Pinhead #1: “I am of Paul!”

Paul: “That’s very flattering, but you’re being an idiot.”

Pinhead #2: “I am of Apollos!”

Paul: “I like Apollos, but you’re being an idiot too.”

Pinhead #3: “I am of Peter!”

Paul: “Peter is a good man, but knock it off!”

Jimmy: “I like turtles.”

Paul: “Thanks for your input Jimmy.”

Pinhead #4: “I am of Christ!”

Paul: “Well, you might think you’re the right one here, but perhaps you’re the biggest idiot of them all.”

Pinheads 1 to 3 were elevating human teachers to too high a level. Pinhead #4 was doing away with human teachers all together.

The bible teaches us we need teachers, because we’re not going to get it right, off on our own, with just our bibles. We need guidance. The problem isn’t simply “I am of Paul”, because we’re all “of Paul”, he wrote most of the new testament. The problem is elevating Paul to a position that he is unworthy of and then vicariously claiming that unworthy status for ourselves.

We do need to be only “of Christ”, of course, but under Christ we can safely also be of Paul, Peter, James, Wesley, Calvin, Piper, Keller, and Pastor __________(fill in the blank), and we can be safely not guilty of what Paul was rebuking the Corinthian church for.

Photo credit: http://www.photo-dictionary.com/phrase/6552/sewing-pins.html#b

Calvinistic Brownies

The only thing worse than a self-righteous Calvinist is a self-righteous anti-Calvinist.

I’ve occasionally found myself among those who are confusedly obsessed with this issue. Some are for, some are against. But what I’ve noticed about many is that they don’t really know what they’re talking about. They get caught up in the buzzwords and assign shallow meanings to such words (predestination, election, sovereignty, etc.), and become highly critical of something they don’t even try to understand. It’s the same as when Atheists attack the Bible without making any effort to understand it.

“The Bible condones slavery and genocide!”

“Okay, but how much of the Bible have you read?”

“The parts about slavery and genocide!”

I remember one person using the word ‘Calvinistic’ to describe anything she didn’t like. “That worship leader is too Calvinistic!” Which meant what? I don’t know. Maybe he didn’t contort his face enough during the ‘free worship’ time. Maybe he just had bad breath. But what I do know is that she had no idea what ‘Calvinistic’ really meant. “These brownies are too Calvinistic!” Maybe they just needed more sugar.

The word Calvinist is a shorthand word used in contemporary times. It will most likely be replaced by something else one day. You could also use ‘Augustinianism’, or ‘The Doctrines of Grace’, or ‘Reformed Theology’, or whatever. Maybe in the future it will be called ‘Piperism’. One who currently calls himself a Calvinist is not necessarily guilty of what Paul is rebuking in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. That rebuke was about pride, not theology. And, of course, if one is using his Calvinism to cause division with other believers, he is indeed guilty of what Paul was rebuking, but again, not because of theology, but because of pride.

If you want to understand something, even to the point of being able to criticize it, then you must first set aside the buzzwords (Calvinism, Arminianism, those listed above, and others), and educate yourself on the subject. Read books and listen to messages by those who hold to the positions and then hold all that up to the Bible (test it!) and see where it takes you.

It seems the biggest proponent of Calvinism today is John Piper, although there are many others. Piper recently retired from his position as a pastor. About a month before he did so he gave a seminar on the five points of Calvinism, or his personal take on the theology currently called Calvinism. I have listened to this whole seminar myself. I recommend this to all thinking Christians. If you don’t like to think, then don’t listen to it — the reason I make that jab is because God gave us brains, and to truly know Him is not just a matter for the heart or the spirit, it is for the mind too.

I invite you to listen to the seminar. Set aside the buzzwords and really listen to what Piper is saying about God. It is quite profound. Here is the link…

New Course on Calvinism from John Piper

*photo credit: http://www.lolbrary.com/post/51576/vegan-brownies/

Frame of Reference

In Cambodia I am a continuous outsider. This leads to a feeling of constant disconnect. I believe this comes from not having a point of reference for my experiences–I don’t know if what I’m seeing is normal or not. Therefore, I am neither surprised at, nor expectant to, what I experience.

My visitors from the west don’t have this issue. Their point of reference is back home in North America. To them everything is strange, or stupid, or smart…when compared to home. I used to use my home in Canada as that reference point as well, but I’ve been here too long to do that anymore. I have not been here long enough, though, to use the Cambodian way as my new reference point. I am caught between two cultures. This isn’t a negative thing and it gives me a unique perspective. Over time I will know more of what is normal and what isn’t, and this perspective will fade. But for now I can try to enjoy it, and maybe gain some wisdom from it.

Driving a vehicle is where one can experience this phenomenon most tangibly. In Canada people drive in straight lines between two straight lines. When I was driving in Canada, if I saw someone veering outside of the lines, I would pull up beside and give my dutiful look of disapproaval. Always I’d see that the driver was either drunk, a senior citizen, or an Asian. I know that sounds truly racist, but there are three reasons why it’s not: first, it’s true; second, I’m married to an Asian and my kids are Asian, so I can say things like that and not justly be called a hater; third, in Asia, to drive straight between two straight lines will only bring on the same looks of disapproval as mentioned above. It’s all relative and Asians are just driving like they’ve been taught. In Asia the lines on the road, if there even are any, are more of a suggestion, and to limit yourself to that restricted space is just bullheaded.

The problem of conflict is another interesting area to get confused about. Recently a guy in his early twenties living next door made a snide remark about my wife. My upset wife came inside and told me about it. I decided it would be good for him to answer for what he said by calling him over so that he could apologize to her. My wife didn’t like that and while the kid was walking over she was scolding me about how I was making problems. I thought I was fixing the problem, not making one. The boy stood like an idiot in front of my house until my wife told him to just go home. He got the point of what was going on though, and to this day, his facial expression goes from cocky to sheepish whenever he sees me. Afterwards my wife was clearly happy about what I did, even though I had violated some cultural taboo. Keep smiling. Bury your emotions. Don’t make problems.

A wise man once said, “If you’re not five minutes early, you’re late!”

In Canada, when I worked in construction, I would rail on the guys under me for showing up late, even if it was just five minutes. Some of them didn’t get why and suggested that working an extra five minutes at the end of the day would be a solution to showing up late five minutes in the morning. They didn’t get that it was a matter of integrity and respect. They would be shocked when I didn’t get angry when they screwed up on the job, and equally shocked at how angry I did get for being just a little late. I would explain that I expected them to screw up on the job because they were learning something new. Being on time, however, is something they should have learned when they were five years old. Usually the guys would get it quickly. As to the more thickheaded ones, I’d just start sending them home whenever they were late.

So, take that attitude into a culture that does not consider being on time important at all. Do I get angry when someone is late? Do I try to change this? Do I adapt? Do I just need to relax? When I schedule meetings for the parents of the kids in our school, I tell them to come an hour before I really want, and we still have to make phone calls about ten minutes before the meeting starts to remind many of them to come. Is this really a cultural thing? Or is it an integrity/respect thing?

One day I will figure it all out and my new frame of reference will ruin all the fun I’m having.