Ron’s #18: Night by Elie Wiesel

Elie Wiesel’s Night is one of the most impacting books I have ever read. When I first read it in 1995, I saw a face of the Holocaust for the first time. I knew the facts of it, but Night helped me to see the human element of it. And, for the first time, I started to think about the idea of how a good God could allow such atrocities and evil. After reading the book in one sitting on the couch on my apartment, I had new categories opened to the world and to my faith.

Night chronicles Elie’s struggle not against Hitler or Mengele or Himmler, but rather with God Himself. Wiesel’s book captures the human questions of theodicy, justifying a good God with evil in the world. It brings up questions that I’m sure I’ll think about for the rest of my life.

This book also showed me the way to God as well: how can we call Hitler or the extermination camps evil unless there is such a thing as absolute goodness? To condemn the Nazis is to say that there is a principle of goodness that they did not meet. If good and evil are only products of society, why do we consider the Nazi German society evil? Who are we to say that what they did was wrong unless a universe principle was trespassed? If there is a universal good, then there is a universal author if that principle, as well. In this way, the Holocaust points a way to a good God in the universe.

After Night, I read many of Wiesel’s books. In 1998, I attended Boston University and took a class with Professor Wiesel: The Literature of Albert Camus. That semester was the best educational experiences that I’ve had. (Ask me about my office meeting with Wiesel when we discussed C. S. Lewis or the failed card trick I attempted to show him in class).

I am currently teaching Night in my Honors 10th grade literature class, and students enjoy it. It strikes me as particularly important now as kids are prone to hold the “whatever works for you” principle of morality. Night shows that morality is not something that society can simply create and the rest of the work should accept blindly. Isn’t that how the Holocaust happened?

Ron’s #17: The Next Story by Tim Challies

I have reviewed a couple of books on the subject of technology recently (Hamlet’s Blackberry and The Shallows), but I’m not growing tired of them (you, readers, may get tired of reading the reviews, though).

For those not familiar with the author, Tim Challies is a prolific Christian blogger at www.challies.com. His is one of only a handful of must-read sites that I visit. When I saw that he had a book about the effects of technology, I wanted to read it. What would a man who makes his living from technology have to say about technology?

The Next Story doesn’t offer much different from the other two books I mentioned, but I don’t mean that as a criticism. Rather, it shows that many people from different walks and faiths come to the same conclusion: our immersion in technology is changing us. Anyone who disagrees with this premise should reconsider and take a longer look at his own life. Challies’s book is part computer history, part social commentary, and part Christian living. All together, this offers a more complete picture of how we ought to live our lives while surrounded by iPhones, Internet, wi-fi, email, Facebook, and digital clouds.

I discovered a curious response when I discuss technology with people: there is a quick reaction against any criticism. This comes from both Christians and non-Christians alike. People seem quick to defend/explain their own technology use and how it is not that bad. I’m reminded of one of my favorite scenes in C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce when the Angel confronts the man with a lizard of lust on his shoulder. The Angel asks, “Would you like me to make him quiet?” but the man has lots of excuses as to why the lizard is not that bad, and that any action will result in pain.

The Angel asks, “Don’t you want him killed?”

“You didn’t say anything about killing him at first. I hardly meant to bother you with anything so drastic as that.”

“It’s the only way,” said the Angel, whose burning hands were now very close to the lizard. “Shall I kill it?”

“Well, that’s a further question. I’m quite open to consider it, but it’s a new point, isn’t it? I mean, for the moment I was only thinking about silencing it because up here — well, it’s so damned embarrassing.”

“May I kill it?”

…

“Please, I never meant to be such a nuisance. Please — really — don’t bother. Look! It’s gone to sleep of its own accord. I’m sure it’ll be all right now. Thanks ever so much.”

“May I kill it?”

“Honestly, I don’t think there’s the slightest necessity for that. I’m sure I shall be able to keep it in order now. I think the gradual process would be far better than killing it.”

“The gradual process is of no use at all.”

“Don’t you think so? Well, I’ll think over what you’ve said very careful. I honestly will. In fact I’d let you kill it now, but as a matter of fact I’m not feeling frightfully well to-day. It would be silly to do it now. I’d need to be in good health for the operation. Some other day, perhaps.”

While the other books discuss how overdosing on technology saps our human interaction, The Next Story adds an added loss, our time and relationship with the God of the Universe. If my texting at dinner pulls me away from my wife and son, what does checking Facebook in the morning or playing Angry Birds before bed do to my relationship with the One who has created me to enjoy the Creator supremely over the creation? When God asks, “May I kill it?” may my response never be, “I’m sure it’ll be all right now. Thanks ever so much.”

Ron’s #16: Hudson Taylor by J. Hudson Taylor

This autobiography has special significance for me, as Hudson Taylor is the namesake of our son, Hudson Coia. We like that our son is named after the man who impacted China with the Gospel of Jesus Christ by becoming one of the Chinese, adopting the language, cultures, and practices.  Taylor follows the Apostle Paul at Mars Hill, and our prayer is that our Hudson will have a passion, love, and longing for a people group in this world.

Read this short book, and your faith in the God of all peoples will increase.

 

Ron’s #15: Delivering Happiness by Tony Hsieh

When I told people that I was currently reading a book on the start of Zappos.com, the response was always the same: “Why?” I’m not exactly sure what interested me in this book, but I found it in the thrift store, and I was eager to read it. Aside from theology, my favorite topic to read is the history and evolution of the computer industry. Reading a book on how an online shoe store became a powerhouse retailer seemed to be perfect.

This book is part autobiography of Tony Hsieh and part how-to-be-a-leader book (a genre that I usually try to avoid). I enjoyed reading the start of young Tony with his entrepreneurial endeavors and accidental encounters that led him to Nick Swinmurn, the owner of a business called shoesite.com, which then transformed into what we now know as Zappos.com. Tony’s dedication to Zappos (even when business logic told him it is a losing proposition) was inspiring. It made me want to buy shoes at Zappos.

Before you readers get too inspired and leave this review to buy the new Nike Frees, I want to give what annoyed me most about this book: Tony Hsieh himself. He is an arrogant, condescending, and strange man. He is smarter and richer than you, and he makes sure you know this. He loves to refer to his friends as his “tribe” (so annoying), and tells of the epiphany he has in a rave. (Tony makes it clear that he liked raves before they were popular). Somehow, that trippy experience inspired him to provide excellent customer service.

Hsieh pontificates how amazing the Zappos culture is, and, frankly, I don’t care. While I appreciate good customer service, let’s keep in mind that they are selling shoes, not running the United Nations.

Ron’s #14: Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air by Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl

For this review, I decided to use the questions from our Apologia study of this book last month. I hope that you or your group can use these as you discuss this excellent book.

1.    Define moral relativism and give examples of this worldview in practice. What were your thoughts on it before reading this book? How did reading this book help your thinking on the issue?

2.    Read the following quotation and discuss why this is the proper result of moral relativism’s worldview:

“What kind of world would it be if relativism were true? It would be a world in which nothing is wrong­–nothing is considered evil or good, nothing worthy of praise or blame. It would be a world in which justice and fairness are meaningless concepts, in which there would be no accountability, no possibility of moral improvement, no moral discourse. And it would be a world in which there is no tolerance” (69).

3.    Explain the difference between the moral ought and the rational ought and subject/object truths (26-27). Does this help frame the discussion?

4.    What are the three types of relativism as described in the book (36-39)? Describe each. Which one do you hear/see/read about the most in our culture?

5.    This book (and Tim Keller’s The Reason for God) discusses the story of the blind men and the elephant. What is the story indented to show, and how can we properly discuss it?

6.    What is the “reformer’s dilemma” (52-53)? How can this be an important discussion point?

7.    Discuss relativism’s seven flaws (61-69). Which would you find most powerful in your discussions on the topic? Least helpful?

8.    What is the difference between moral absolutes and values clarification? How prevalent is the values clarification model today? Are there modern examples?

9.    How is our politically correct culture and multiculturalism a natural offspring of moral relativism? How is it a contradiction of it?

10.  How are the hot-button topics like abortion and same-sex marriage used in this book to display the problems with moral relativism? In your opinion, are the authors effective in their use of the issues?

11. As we did with the seven flaws, review and discuss the four tactics to refute relativism (143-155). Which do you find strongest and weakest?