It's Banned Books Week! The American Library Association has more information about the significance of this week, as well as a list of the 100 most frequently challenged books of 1990-2000.
In discussing the list, Chris and I noted that while the list contains plenty of books of dubious literary value, a good number of the books on that list would actually go on our (as yet uncompiled, alas) list of "books you should read before you die." Chris suggested that we each pick a book from the list that had an important influence on our life and blog about it—so here's my choice.
I first read Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo Anaya in my Literature 101 course in early college. I expected it would be a boring read-it-in-order-to-pass-the-class sort of novel, and was completely caught off guard by the effect it had on my Christian worldview. One of the central plot plot elements in Bless Me, Ultima is a young boy's attempt to reconcile the Catholic faith with his Native American beliefs and culture. From a Christian perspective, the story does not end happily: the boy rejects Catholicism and Christianity in favor of a more vague and less judging set of spiritual beliefs, but it made me think long and hard about evangelism.
First, it helped me glimpse the immense challenge of reconciling Christianity with deeply-ingrained cultural beliefs and behaviors. My understanding of evangelism and missionary work was pretty naive and Anglocentric at the time, and Bless Me, Ultima made me understand that for many people, the decision to embrace Christianity is a painful and heart-wrenching decision that puts them at odds with their culture. At the same time I read Anaya's novel, I was also making my way through the works of Shusaku Endo, whose novels depict the difficulty that early Japanese Christians faced in reconciling their new faith with their culture and upbringing. Between all of these novels, I realized that evangelism was a much more complex task than just handing out tracts and waiting for people to say the Sinner's Prayer and live happily ever after.
Secondly, it taught me that when Christianity is misrepresented, it does lasting damage. The Christianity that the protagonist is faced with is a branch of localized Catholicism that often bears little resemblance to the actual Gospel message. This is the protagonist's only exposure to Christianity, and when he ultimately rejects it, it seems unlikely that even the best-intentioned minister could undo the damage and get the boy to reconsider. The Christianity depicted in the book is unable or unwilling to answer the boy's real spiritual questions, and actually drives him from the church.
I can understand why concerned parents would not want their kids reading Bless Me, Ultima—it's got witchcraft, non-Christian religions, and an ending that doesn't involve the protagonist's conversion to Christianity. But it actually helped to deepen my Christian faith, and I'd hate to think that anyone of the appropriate age is being denied access to it.
How about you? Anybody else out there read Bless Me, Ultima and want to share your thoughts? Are there any books on that list that are especially important to you?
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (33)
"A Wrinkle In Time" was banned? "Where's Waldo", banned.
The importance of the figures, political and numerical, that stand behind the facts of banned books can't be understated, and the ALA provides a breakdown of who is out there most consistently trying to initiate book bannings, year by year.
http://www.ala.org/Template.cf...
I guess the primary reason for banning books is to keep kids from distracting themselves in school or asking their parents questions that they aren't prepared to answer.
Hm. That says a lot for our culture, doesn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
All our sins are frustratingly, maddeningly normal; we commit sins and cling to them all the time and find new justification for defending ourselves each day. The conversation where people tell each other that they're going to hell because of one sin or another produces nothing but noise and it's bad for the soul.
One more time, homosexuality = normal. Lots and lots and lots of people are homosexual and "do something about it". Lots and lots and lots of people have affairs, or steal, or have hate in their hearts for their brothers and sisters. Sin is ridiculously common. That we sin, even Christians (especially Christians!) is "the norm". It's "normal", it comes natural to us, and we're not going to stop doing it anytime soon.
That, at least to me, is the first thing we have to accept about sin if we're going to deal with sin honestly in ourselves and with mercy and healing in others. If we teach our kids that some sins are exceptional and create an idea in their heads that some sinners are unlike Our kinds of sinners (the supposedly "reformed" kind), we foster a division in their minds that shouldn't exist, and teach them to pass judgment on others based on the estrangement we've created. This is probably a sin, actually.
Showing your kids (and your friends, and strangers) how recognizing their sinfulness and being freed from it would change everything for them is what we Christians are supposed to do, right? But if we believe ourselves and teach our families that one way of falling short is altogether worse than others, we're less able to show them how to live their faith because we've adopted some Pharisaical system of accounting righteousness instead of discipleship.
Lots of Heathers out there have two mommies. We can stay on our side of the yard and tell each other how wrong that is, or we can learn how to live with, befriend, watch over, and love Heather AND her mommies and live our faith like we're supposed to and let God work on their souls. One thing we can't do is ban books that might help Heather from getting mud thrown at her on the playground by little 'saved' Christian boys and girls. In fact, if we were really on the ball, we'd be prayerfully WRITING those kinds of books and teaching the world how not to throw stones at each other.
I don't know that stories about same-sex couples raising children is going to save children from harrassment by "saved" Christian bullies. It might even incite some. I would prefer that if people are motivated to write and publish such books, they can be quietly put on library shelves, and those who wish to read them can do so. If there is an agenda to either stomp on other people's private choices or to require everyone to approve of private choices, it becomes a problem rather than a contribution to a broad conversation. We each have rights to make our own choices, none of us are mandated to approve of the choices our neighbors make.
In some other countries the Bible is a banned book. Perhaps those who want to ban a book should consider the words of Martin Niemoller :
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
To say justify any sin by saying that others sin, therefore it's normal, is spit in the face of the One Who did for our sins.
If any adulterer out there tells me they are a Christian, but "God is okay with me having sex with someone other than my husband" they are lying, and you know they are because the Holy Bible (a book banned in LOTS of countries, by the way) says so. It is perfectly alright for me to challenge and confront one living in open sin (whether it's lying, adultery, stealing, homosexuality, cursing) and share with them truths of Scripture. The Bible says if, after I confront another walking in error, they choose to continue in their error, I am to disfellowship with them until they repent.
God bless you again, John.
In our country, where nobody is persecuted for owning and reading the Bible - but lots and lots and lots of people who don't live according to the Bible are mocked in the streets by people who swear they're Christian - we have to eat the fact that people are sinning in the name of our faith, and that's a big deal.
Only in a country where Christians are used to being able to arbitrate what we will or won't tolerate can we betray our principals and turn against people who don't confess Christ without feeling shame. Only in a country where Christians believe they are rightfully dominant does it ever occur to a Christian to refuse to fellowship with a person who doesn't know Christ. That just doesn't make any sense. When Jesus said that tax collectors and prostitutes would get to heaven ahead of some of us, I think he meant it and I take it seriously. When Jesus associated freely with tax collectors and prostitutes and all the while asked us to follow him, I think he meant it, and I want to learn to take that seriously.
Anyone out there with a nitroglycerin pill to stave off a heart attack, because I am about to agree with Siarlys: "homosexuality is not normal." But - homosexuals are deeply loved by the Lord, and as Lynch Patrick points out, this is what we must model to them if we wish weight to be given to our words when we tell them of the Lord's transforming grace & love.
P.S., Siarlys, how'd you come up with that 80% stat? Oops, sorry, didn't mean to cause another disagreement :)
You say that you believe that the "Word has so many dimensions, and so much depth of meaning" - but you don't extend that insight to the world around you?
"Deviance" is a term not from Darwinism proper, but from so-called "social" Darwinism - an Enlightenment doctrine that purports that a genetic norm exists, and outliers from that norm are genetically (and ontologically) inferior. Exponents of the doctrine have used it to demonstrate the inherent inferiority of certain races, to argue that women are inherently stupid and emotionally unbalanced, and hold that class differences were the result of inborn characteristics. The less-intelligent are inherently less human, "mongoloidism" seems like an obvious connection between the glut of "primitive" Asian cultures you imagine exist and the mentally deficient child you're diagnosing, and anything unfamiliar is measurably deficient by its degree of variation from your perspective. Blithely imagining that error and difference are the same thing, you fantasize that culpability and choice have to be held to some objective standard of reckoning - to paraphrase, you're blaming the sick for being lazy. When you use the word "deviance" to apply to genetic characteristics, you imagine categories of valuative norms that don't exist in Darwinism (or bioscience in general) and have no room in Christian ethics.
The scientific word you're looking for is "variation". Of course, since it doesn't imply all the moral categories that would make gay people both genetic failures and ethical transgressors, you probably didn't want to use it.
The word "deviance" however, is quite loaded with recrimination - it's a roadblock and an ominous announcement all in one. It says exactly what you think it means - Abberation Ahead! - with no elaboration as to why. Socially, it's a watchword. In the strictest ethical-behavioral context, it spooks the horses.
In Social Science, we pay a lot of attention to the concept of deviance, because we recognize that people perceive others as deviant for a host of reasons, and every individual that gets called "different" or "deviant" has very different relationships with those who label them that way - and that can and should be studied. Most gay people don't consider themselves procreationally disabled or socially deviant, despite how they're characterized by some. Lots of people born deaf don't consider themselves disabled and resent those who are uncomfortable around them. Essentially, both groups make exactly the same argument for themselves: 'we didn't make ourselves, we don't care to be different, and we're just trying to live our lives'. Think about that.
Homosexuality is not a genetic "deviance". Homosexuality occurs in mammals for a constellation of different reasons, none of which fit into moral categories at all (obviously, because animals don't have the social skills to recognize "deviance" and censure it): ranging from hormones to stress to establishing dominance to possibly even disease. Same-sex coitus is actually quite common all over animal kingdom, and like most things mammalian, evidently happens without a whole lot of forethought or afterthought. We, however, have the capacity for rational thought, and therefore can re-conceive of homosexuality as a preference that, acted upon, was a predicate choice, and therefore is a "plan", and from there make the leap to conjecture as to what "should or shouldn't be" with regards to the success of that "plan" in competition with our "plans" - prompting us to ask the philosophically insalubrious question, "what good is homosexuality?" and burst open a never-ending can of fake snakes that will never actually yield any new insight or information for us.
Instead, it's much more useful to note just how easily this logic is transposed throughout our normal discourse, the crazy places that all this silliness has slunk into and remains, and be ashamed of ourselves for nodding our heads when people say things like: AIDS is a "gay" disease, black culture doesn't value education, Islam hates America, women are designed to be monogamous. Go ahead, come up with a few on your own. It's a fun exercise.
Interestingly enough, one thing that this kind of reasoning will never do is investigate for possible biological or environmental stimuli resulting in homosexual behavior - when homosexuality and deviance have been linked in doctrine, that's tantamount to questioning first principals. After all, why do science when you already have a strong opinion?
Homosexuality, like brown eyes, cold rain in the summer, and the occasional late newspaper, is just something that happens in the world around us; it may not be happening to us, but that doesn't mean we're categorically different because of it. Christian ethics isn't done that way. Test everything; retain what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
A big, big part of Christianity is keeping yourself open and charitable and encouraging others to do the same. The Gospel isn't some entrenched system of right and wrong that we Christians are supposed to just argue from, and we are pitiable people if we can't relax around people whose beliefs and conduct don't correspond with the ideals we set up for ourselves. We have to be different from now on. If you're getting the door slammed in your face by people, chances are, you're not coming off as someone they would want to let in their house.
Don't be those people.
Your well-thought out post was a reply to Siarlys, but I would like to respond to part of it. You wrote,
“Interestingly enough, one thing that this kind of reasoning [i.e., re-conceiving of homosexuality as “…a preference that, acted upon, was a predicate choice, and therefore is a "plan", and from there make the leap to conjecture as to what "should or shouldn't be" with regards to the success of that "plan" in competition with our "plans"] will never do is investigate for possible biological or environmental stimuli resulting in homosexual behavior - when homosexuality and deviance have been linked in doctrine, that's tantamount to questioning first principals. After all, why do science when you already have a strong opinion?”
If people claiming to be Christians believe sexual activity is reserved for marriage, it is fair to discover whether or not this is what Scripture teaches. If people claiming to be Christians believe that marriage is one man & one woman, it is fair to discover what Scripture really teaches. If people believe that single men and women are to remain sexually pure until they are married, it’s fair to discover what Scripture really teaches on the subject. To dismiss the people who believe these tenets as merely strongly opinionated (and insinuate they are closed-minded to science as well) is unfair.
People engaged in a consensual relationship are choosing to be involved sexually, because human beings are able to control themselves in this matter. Sex doesn’t just happen with human adults - as it does in the wider animal kingdom – a conscious decision to take part in the act is made by men & women. And Scripture has a lot to say on how to deal with this most important and delicate facet of our lives. If we discover we are in conflict with the teachings of the Bible, we have a choice to make; I don't say it will be easy...
That many struggle with the temptation of same-sex attraction, is undisputed. There’s no sin in that. Many fine counselors (Larry Crabb & Dan Allender among them, Henri Nouwen should probably also be placed here although not a counselor proper) have documented the impact of various forces on our sexual desires. But to cast the plain teachings of the Bible aside because ‘we don’t have all the scientific answers yet’ is to have it exactly backwards. Since the Lord obviously knew that people would deal with same-sex feelings, yet chose not to uplift lesbianism & homosexuality as viable options for humanity in the Bible, one can conclude that perhaps Scripture needs to be studied more carefully, with scientific studies examined in light of its truths. There must be good reasons God chooses not to commend certain sexual expressions, right? But, even if we never know His “why,” we should still walk in obedience to His Word - a foundational principle no Christian can dismiss lightly, unscientific though walking by faith can be at times.
As to your comment in another post that Christians do not disfellowship with UNbelievers who may be sinning sexually, I agree with all my heart. But - neither are we as Christians to encourage unbelievers in their errors. Christians who encourage those in sexual sin by sanctioning their unions are betraying our principles just as much as those who tell homosexuals that God hates them.
For my part, I'm extremely interested in the concept of choice as regards sexuality - beyond the individual decisions we make regarding our sexual lives, I mean the social production of rationales (not ideologies) of varying efficaciousness to confirm, disconfirm, deny and reframe the cultural conversation about "what being gay is".
Christiane li, I try to leave my Bible scholarship to people who know better than me; if the Bible says homosexuality doesn't work, and most people agree on that at least, I'll get around to better understanding why eventually, but I'm no "in the meantime.." advocate.
For my part, I have no idea whether an issue like same-sex marriage is worth taking a stand against from religious grounds, especially when the politics behind it (both for and against) is so sordid. I've heard fairly compelling arguments from Christians saying that we should support it, at least tacitly, as a playing-field leveler and equip ourselves to deal with the consequences with more aptly formed ministries. I try not to take a hard line on this stuff, when Ted Haggard-esque hypocrisy always waiting to be discovered and often goes unreflected upon during these so-called "Christian culture wars".
What a neat discussion this has turned out to be.
If you'd rather be mad and feel justified than help them, that's not Christ-like of you.
It's that simple. Trying to come up with ways to help and ways to think about ourselves as sinners and others as fellows and fellow needers-of-Christ is what we're doing here. If you think that's not worth doing, then go ahead and be mad and do nothing.
None of us here is pretending to know how to be all things to all people that by all means we might save some; but we're trying.
Evidently you think you can just shake a Bible in front of a person and that will automatically make them want to follow Christ? It doesn't work. God's not going to magically convert everybody for us, just like he didn't magically convert us. We have to do the work; we have to walk towards Christ ourselves and carry the Water of Life to others along the way, and convince them of it's power. How do you get people to repent if they don't think what they do is right or wrong? How do you get Christians to look in the mirror and turn away from THEIR pet evil? You might think that just because you know what the Bible says that that's all there is to it - but it clearly isn't.
After all, no matter how well you think you know the Bible, you're still totally powerless to help your friends see their sins so as to repent of them. You're still far from being an example of the faith and joy and peace that comes with relying on Christ. And that's a big part of what being a Christian is all about. Not to be too harsh, but maybe you don't "get" it.
You seem like a passionate dude, but getting mad at us doesn't help, just like getting mad at your gay friends doesn't help. We're putting in the effort here. Join the conversation and help, and help come up with ways to help, or stay mad: It's your soul.
"I try to leave my Bible scholarship to people who know better than me..."
Who are these scholarly folk, and what are your qualifications for seeing them as being "better" than you? (And isn't the fact that you choose them kind of biased from the getgo?)
You seem to me as one who is fairly well read, able to comprehend Biblical truths, at least you don't hesitate to let John know what the Bible says about love, peace, joy, even the Holy Spirit's work to draw a soul to the Lord. Why all of a sudden go to "science" and "experts" and "cultural" outside sources when homosexuality is the issue?
Yes, John is mad, but that's because when he reads the Bible he sees that an unrepentant life of sexual sin will have horrible eternal consequences for a person. He cares enough to get mad about others who would lead these men & women without Christ on in their errors, even encouraging them to stay in sinful behavior. I admire him for that. I think it's helpful to have passion on this subject. He has friends involved in this lifestyle whom he loves, they are getting mixed messages from all kinds of sources, they need his zeal for truth. All of us do.
What can we do when the Bible says homosexuality is wrong? Love those who are trapped in it, minister to their needs. Fight those who would have such immorality legally codified by voting for legislators who will uplift marriage between one man and one woman. Boldly and gladly share the Bible's teachings on the subject when speaking with family and friends, considering it a privilege to stand up for the Lord instead of seeing such a stance as being "against" homosexuals. That's just for starters.
As for your lack of surety whether an unrepentant sinner will enter the Kingdom (whether such a person's sin involves sexual immorality or not), please see I Corinthians 6:9 - 10, Siarlys.
The context of Matthew 25:31 is that the Gentile nations are being judged (v. 32) according to how they have treated the Jewish people following a great tribulation (Matthew 24:3-21). Here’s the scene (although I am sure it will be much worse): a wretched philosophy with man glorified as the be-all and end-all is the political pinnacle of the earth; this ideology will be much like Nazism with its man-worship and raw hatred of the Jewish people, but it’s multiplied a 1,000 times more than even the most pathetic, surly, drive-the-Jews-into-the-sea proponent can envision, because a highly deceptive and evil satanic power is energizing it. This system is THE power, triumphant in terrorizing, fascism on steroids if you will, anti-Semitism enshrined, humanity at its very best apart from God. During this time, there will be various nations who dare to minister to the Lord's despised, smitten, afflicted, and rejected Jewish brethren. By their actions, they will demonstrate real faith, but they will not realize it is actually the Living God they are ministering to, much as Saul the Christian-despiser didn’t realize he was hurting Christ Himself until the Lord asked him on that Damascus road, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?” And these righteous nations shall be forever part of the Lord’s earthly kingdom for their bravery, courage, and righteous deeds.
The book of Revelation has many details; I have given what I am sure is a paltry description, but I have done my best.
So please, let’s not pretend that in today’s world, we can visit someone in prison, and the Lord is going to save us forever because, wow, we are such good human beings. To the contrary, treating the sick, feeding and clothing the poor, ministering to those in prison are but “those things which we ought to have done.”
As to the Book of Revelation, it is so highly symbolic, that each and every person who endeavored to explain what it meant in terms of "today's world" -- no matter what century "today" might happen to fall in -- has had to color it with their own personal guesswork, so it does not lend authority to anyone's explanation of why the Gospel doesn't mean what it says, but really means something quite different.