Book Review: Immanuel's Veins by Ted Dekker

Ted Dekker is known for intense good versus evil confrontation thrillers that usually lend readers toward a male hero who seeks to defend the virtue of a young, beautiful woman. His heroes are strong, they are quick, they are torn between the metaphysical realities of God and love and physical restraints of humanity and sin. And honestly, the plots become sorely repetative.

I had to take a break from reading Ted Dekker. It isn't that he is a bad author. On the contrary. I think is Circle "Trilogy" is one of the better novel packs I have read in the last 10 years (man, I just dated myself...), but he has typecasted his characters, writing what he knows - strong hero, blushing bride, good vs evil for the epic battle of the heart, and there is usually a redemption story. It just got to the point where I felt Dekker had fallen into a more riveting and slightly less obnoxious [male] version of Christian romance novels. Yes, that is a dangerous claim to make.

via

I knew what I was getting into when I opened this book. But only to an extent. 

See, Immanuel's Veins did not, in any way at all, keep me interested. I read it for one reason, and one reason only: Dekker played with Russian history and folklore, and as a history and fairy story nutcase, I bit. The characters were not interesting to me. They were typical caricatures for a Dekker novel, and I was disappointed because I had hoped for more. Disappointment number one.

The characters all ended up in this creepy gothic castle where this beastly vampire-esque Vlad posed as the super lover, revealing himself to be the evil foil to our hero, Toma. But it got really weird when Dekker started weaving in Biblical mythology of Nephilim (Genesis 6) with his gothic Russian set plot. For his fictional purposes, Dekker suggested that the Nephilim were wicked creatures who came to be known in modern literature and story as ...wait for it...vampires. Disappointment number two.

via

[If you need to know more about who the Nephilim are, click here. It will take you to a really helpful Wikipedia page outlining the two scholarly views on who the Nephilim are...and you'll notice that 'vampire' isn't on the list.]

I can understand why Dekker did it, though. Immanuel's Veins was published during the final stretch of the Twilight mania. It was released in the USA in 2010, the same year Summit Entertainment put out Eclipse, the third installment of the Twilight movie saga. Further, interlacing Nephilim mythology with Vampire folklore opened up the 'paid in blood, cleansed in baptismal water' theme that Dekker likes so much. After all, how else was he going to get away with seduction scenes and true love at the point of a savior (without it sounding too much like a Bella/Edward/Jacob situation)?

I have to give Dekker credit where credit is due. He wrote the story he is good at. Repetative and anti-climactic as it is becoming at this point in his literary career, it does sell. What worries me, though, is that Dekker won't ever take chances on something new. He is no Kurt Vonnegut, David Foster Wallace, or Julian Barnes. He knows this. But he has the potential to be. I'm tired of reading books by Dekker and reading the same story over and over and over again. His peak was the Circle series. I hope he finds something to redeem his writers career, because I believe he shows promise. 

Was Immanuel's Veins the best piece of English Literature that I've read? No. But that's okay. I'm just glad his vampires didn't sparkle in the sunlight.

The Monsters and the Critics

"Fantasy is a natural human activity. It certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better the fantasy will it make. If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth (facts or evidence), then Fantasy would languish until they were cured. If they were ever to get into that state (it would not seem at all impossible), Fantasy will perish, and become Morbid Delusion.

For creative Fantasy is founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as it appears under the sun; on a recognition of fact, but not a slavery to it. So upon logic was founded the nonsense that displays itself in the tales and rhymes of Lewis Carroll. If men really could not distinguish between frogs and men, fairy stories about frog-kings would not have arisen. 

Fantasy can, of course, be carried to excess. It can be ill done. It can be put to evil uses. It may even delude the minds out of which it came. But of what human thing in this fallen world is that not true? Men have conceived not only of elves (which, it is important to note here, Tolkien references as being the same as part of Faerie. In fact, the words apparently are derivatives of the same Latin base), but they have imagined gods, and worshipped them, even worshipped those most deformed by their authors' own evil. But they have made false gods out of other materials: their notions, their banners, their monies; even their sciences and their social and economic theories have demanded human sacrifice. Abusus non tollit usum. Fantasy remains a human right: we make in out measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker."

JRR Tolkien, On Faerie Stories

I'm beginning to realize that determining the "Christian post-modern" (if it could indeed exist) may be worth my academic time. I might finally have found a graduate school thesis. It is, for that matter, something which could be turned into a doctoral work. 

And I've come to realize that I revere J.R.R. Tolkien's work. He, C.S. Lewis, and J.K. Rowling stand quite distinct as writers of the Christian post-modern: reuniting meta-narrative with reality, as it were. Part of me wishes nothing more than to simply have a desk in the corner of a pub where I can write a great story (and drink great beer). I think, deep down, I always knew I would become a hobbit-esque academic storyteller. 

And that is how I feel about that. It's the academic in me finally admitting it needs to come out and stay out. 

Word of the Day: Panoply [1) Complete or impressive collection of things. 2) Splendid display. 3) Complete set of arms or suit of armour. Orig. 16th. C. = complete protection for spiritual warfare.]

Quote of the Day: "The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces the essence of all fairy stories." Tolkien

The Unlikely Disciple - A review

Several weeks ago a friend suggested I read "The Unlikely Disciple." I was uncertain about adding another book to my workload/reading list, but I'm glad I took her advice.

This is the true story of the teenager who did a semester at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. 

Now, for a little bit of background, before I jump into my own thoughts about the text. Kevin Roose was a sophmore at Browns University. That's right, Browns. As you find out in the first chapter, instead of doing a semester abroad like many of his friends, he chose to do a semester at Liberty, for journalistic interest's sake. 

It has taken me a few weeks to process this book. Roose paints a gracious and revealing picture of life at this fundamentalist baptist university, including his accounts of evangelism, creationism, 'The Liberty Way,' and much more. I was struck by the similarities - and the differences - between Liberty and Redeemer. 

I'm two months away from finishing my degree at Redeemer. Redeemer is a Christian liberal arts university located in Ancaster (Hamilton), Ontario, Canada. Redeemer, like Liberty, offers degrees in many academic spheres and teaches from a Christian worldview. Redeemer offers courses in apologetics, hermeneutics, and the academic study of scripture. It has faculty and staff who are devoted to both faith and scholarship. Its students joke about it being a safe haven, a Christian Bubble if you will, shielding its students from the scary outside world. But I'm afraid that is where the similarities end.

See, Redeemer was founded as a Reformed (prominently Calvinist) -based post secondary institution. It has never been affiliated with the mega-church movement, a 'mega-church' pastor, and its students certainly don't look to the president as the most influential man in the country. While Redeemer has a Code of Conduct, it encourages trust, and acknowledges that it cannot police the behaviour of its students. After all, part of being a Christian is being challenged to live differently, not simply doing so because the university you attend will make you pay fines if you break their laws (example, demerit points and a $25.00 fine if you are caught watching or in possession of an R rated film). 

While Redeemer does not have a student population of 25 000 (no, just a mere 900 students), or offer a weekly televised evangelical church service (I can hardly see the Reformed Protestants I know participating in this sort of phenomenon), or insist that all its faculty hold a '6-day creationist' view of how the world came to be, it does exist, and it is also developing some strong, intellectually apt leaders. 

Liberty has always been an enigma to me. Working at Muskoka Bible Centre last summer, a retreat/camping/conference centre born out of the same Christian tradition as Liberty, I have had some experiences with Liberty students - both within my work-sphere, and as guests on the grounds. One thing that I have never forgotten is as follows.

The first week of the summer season is what MBCers have affectionately dubbed "Liberty Week." It is an informal way of saying that the chapel is overrun with Liberty paraphernilia - speakers, worship band, and the booth with the bright red t-shirts. Following one of the chapel services, I decided to meander towards the Liberty booth, just to look at the University brochure and see the sorts of programs they offered, to compare it to Redeemer. 

Within about 30 seconds I had a Liberty student engaging me in conversation about my life story, my faith, my ambitions, and my education. I guess it was pretty obvious I was a college-aged person. Besides the fact that she seemed thoroughly unamused by the fact that I was a student at Redeemer (her expression actually shifted into a depressed sort of wail as she uttered, "oh, you go to Redeeeemer"), she began to inquire about the status of my faith. Explaining to her that I had been baptized as a child - as is the practise of my tradition - and done profession of faith in front of my church at age 18, she seemed agitated. 

"So, you mean you aren't a born again Christian?" she asked me. 

"Well, what do you mean by that?" I asked her.

"You know, born again, have you rededicated your life to Christ? Have you been re-baptized?"

Last time I checked, baptism only needed to happen once, so I said no.

"Oh," she said, looking downcast. "Do you think you're a Christian, then?"

Again, I asked her what she meant.

"Well, you should be born again if you're a true Christian. Do you know Jesus?"

I can't really remember what happened next, but I do remember walking away from that conversation a little confused. Since when does being a true Christian mean being a 'born again Christian'? Since when does the Sacrament of Baptism need to be performed more than once on a believer? Why did I feel a little put-off by this eager young girl (whose major I later-on found out to be religon) who clearly just thought I needed to be evangelized?

All good questions, and after reading Roose's book, I may have had a few of them answered. I also learned a lot about Liberty. It occurred to me while I read that some people must see Redeemer in this same way, and that is a sobering thought. 

Do take the time to read this book. You'll laugh, you'll be angry, but most of all, it will drive you to re-evaluate why you believe what you believe. And who knows, you might even find answers.

Word of the Day: Noise

Quote of the Day: "Maybe our stars are unanimously tired..." Jon Foreman, Switchfoot

Luther: Christendom's Superhero

Does anyone else find this as funny as I do? 

It was a book in the Kid's section of MBC's bookstore. Awesome.

Word of the Day: Gumptuous (not even a word).

Quote of the Day: "I need more sleep than normal people my age because I have like 18 children inside of me." Katie Henderson

A Prayer

One of the girls in my dorm have started a morning prayer group.

This morning at 7am several students gathered in the prayer room and spent an hour praying for the school. It was awesome.

In my first year, a group of RAs got together and started early morning prayer, but after they graduated last year, that group sort of died off. One of my girls realized that there is a strong need for prayer for Redeemer. She saw a need for active prayer. And she made it happen.

This morning was the first meeting. 7am, in the cold, when it was still dark, we went to the school. Six students gathered and we prayed. The hour went by so quickly, and seeing God's faithfulness throughout the day was incredible.

This morning, there was also Chapel, and we were asked to write down burdens on a peice of paper and leave them at the altar. This was a great idea, except that...I was so at peace from the morning prayer that I couldn't write anything down. My day was just held in the hands of my Saviour, and I could really feel it. Everything I did, I was just at peace. It was such a great feeling.

I pray that God will bless Redeemer. I pray that Redeemer will be a light to Hamilton. I pray that the students will see and feel God move. That the staff anf faculty will reflect a Christ attitude in all they do. And I pray for peace.

Word of the Day: thenst

Quote of the Day: "You know what I'm talking about. That love at first sight. You are at a party, and your eyes meet, and something goes BOING!" -Dr. Loney

Lions and Lambs

March.

I don't know where the saying came from, but someone once asked whether March came in like a lion, or in like a lamb. It assumed that the weather (stormy, or calm) would offer a prediction as to how the month would go out. If it came in like a lion, it would go out like a lamb.

Curious images. Both images are very Biblical. The lines to a Chris Tomlin song mention Christ as the Lion and the Lamb. In fact, the Bible uses the images of both a lion and lamb to describe the Messiah. It is the contrast of these images that is powerful. That Christ could be the Lamb of God, and the Lion of Judah are juxtapositions that make the diversity of these names difficult to comprehend. But it is the importance of these images that make them so powerful. The Lion is the king. It is the stronghold. It is the animal that reigns the animal world. It is a metaphor of power, of justice, of kingship. Christ is king, indeed. The lamb, on the otherhand, though meek and timid, is a rather useless animal. It served for two purposes. Meat, and blood. The meat was obviously for eating, and the blood was used as a sacrifice. The lamb was not powerful, or kingly. Instead, it was humble. It signified Christ, coming in humility, dying a sacrifice. Christians everywhere practise the Lord's Supper, where wine and bread represent the body and blood of the Lamb.

So, what does this have to do with March?

Well, this March, it hit me. The Lion of Judah, the Lamb who was slain, gave up his life to redeem everything under heaven. Christ's death AND resurrection was not just for my own personal gain. In fact, I deserve it least of all. But he died to redeem the entire creation- birds, trees, rivers, lakes, flowers, our minds, music, art, language...everything.

This Lent season has been difficult. And it is only the second week in. Television and movies seem like such a small sacrifice compared to that of my Lord. Think about this, March came in with both a Lion and a Lamb. It isn't one or the other. Christ rules all creation. His sacrifice and resurrection were a victory over the grave, and now He reigns.

So, did your March come in with a Lion or a Lamb? Or did the diversity of YAHWEH bring you to your knees? In this Lent season, where we remember the sacrifice of Christ, perhaps it is necessary to address what is God over your life. Perhaps it is time to practise Lent. I have found, over the last few years, that it is not enough to just go to church and know. It is to experience. Whether it be food, drink, games, television, etc., pick something that is enjoyable to you, and give it up. It is not too late to start.

(for you LOST fans, Yes, the guy who plays Desmond also played Jesus.)

Word of the Day: Congratulations

Quote of the Day: "Americans are such sore losers." Chad Haverkamp

Improbability of God or of Atheism

Richard Dawkins. Atheist extraordinaire. If those arguements weren't fallible enough for you, I offer you, dear Reader, 'The Improbability of God".

Now, my questions to you, Mr Dawkins are this: How do you feel about being an evolutionary blip? Show me the point in which humans evolved from apes. You can't find the missing link? Hmm.

Here is my issue with Mr. Dawkins. It's all fine and dandy to go around spouting out one's view, even his... but it seems as though, in his effort to falsify religion, he has developed his own. It is unclear to me whether it is the concept of a God he has a problem with, or whether it is the religion he has a problem with. In both cases, his facts are flawed. Darwin did not set out to disprove God, in fact, he hoped his research in evolutionary theory (which Darwin also admitted was just theory), would help with the division between science and religion. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Heraclius, Averroes, (the list goes on) all believed in a God-like being. They felt a higher presence, they knew that the universe was governed by...something.

Dawkins would say that they are philosophers, and he is a scientist and therefore those are irrelevant to his message.

But consider this. Parmenides talked about being and unbeing. Being is. Unbeing is not. If atheism were true, that there is no God, and we've all been led to believe something that is false, how is it that the notion of God would still exist. The feeling of a universe governed by ...something. Can this be replaced by scientific explaination? I'm skeptical to say it can be. If unbeing is not, the notion of God would not exist. By suggesting there is no God, Atheism has proven that here is one. God would be unbeing, and therefore the entire idea of him would not exist.

And this is just one of the many arguements that has come out Mr. Richard Dawkins' work. In the spirit of controversy, I thought I would add this.

Word of the Day: philanthropist

Quote of the Day: "I am very disappointed in you." John Locke (LOST)

A little bit of controversy.

Stephen Lewis was at Redeemer. If you know anything about who he is, or what he stands for, you can understand where the controversy comes from. So if you are interested to know what has made headline news, please feel free to check out all the links.

As someone on the editing staff of the Crown, I would like to remind readers that this viewpoint is not that of the Crown, or any of its staff. Controversy needs to be printed sometimes. If you are angry at the article, I am too. But consider why you are angry.

I encourage you to read them all. Read the comments that go with them.

The basic information on the night with Stephen Lewis can be found here.

The article that has recieved much response can be found here.

Another viewpoint, perhaps more relevant, is by Jan Korevaar, found here.

Now, consider Stephen Lewis as a world figure. His website, www.stephenlewisfoundation.org offers more information on who he is. He is an advocator of Pro-Choice. He is also a significant figure in the fight for world justice, AIDS in Africa, and an advocate of human rights.

Now, consider the articles. As Christians, in response to all of those articles, perhaps casting stones, as Christ condemns, isn't the way to go about things. After all, haven't we all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Is our anger justified? Is Redeemer really to be scolded for asking a man of such world influence into its school to speak at the Social Justice conference?

Now that is a little bit of controversy.

Word of the Day: Dream

Quote of the Day: "Hey Chad, have you seen Haas's shirt? It's almost as loud as you are!"

On Television and 'Christian' Culture

I'm sitting in my dorm, and my roommate just walked in. I don't know what it is about this semester, but my dormmates always have the television on. It gets turned on at 9 in the morning, and only gets shut off for dinner (so about 30 minutes). The day begins with Regis and Kelly, rounds up the afternoon with daytime T.V., Dr. Phil, Oprah, and Dr. Oz. After dinner, there's usually a wide selection of unnecessary and crude movies, complete with The Hangover, Step Brothers and every scary movie you could possibly think of. All I can think of is: WHAT A WASTE OF TIME!

I have homework to do, and chances are, so do the girls in my dorm. I sit in my room, at my desk and do homework (also, as I am writing this, my roommate has turned on the T.V. to watch Dr. Phil...something about cheating husbands...honestly, whose business is this?!). The irony is that what I am reading about is contextualizing Christianity in our secular world.

Our world is secular because of the media. Shows like the O.C., Dr. Phil, Oprah, Gossip Girl, and yes, even LOST, are saturated with our pagan, anti-Christian culture. We, as human beings, are porous. We absorb everything we hear, see, touch, etc. This is why propaganda is such a powerful thing. This is especially true with television shows, radio music, and even the books we read. Ask yourself while you're watching television what it is that you are watching.

I'm tired of bad television. And let's face it, Dr. Phil, Oprah, Daytime TV, Gossip Girl, etc., is bad television. I don't even know what good television is anymore. We escape into these shows and block out our own lives, but at the same time, we absorb everything they are trying to 'teach'. Eventually the morals of our media become our own morals. As a Christian, I have a problem with this.

Now, I'm as guilty as the next person for sitting in front of the TV and just being there, not doing anything but 'watching'. I'm also guilty of having the TV on for background noise. We don't realize that this is equally dangerous. I've been trying to replace the TV in the background for Christian music (I must have background noise). But encouraging the girls I live with to do the same is a problem, since a few of them are 'morally' against Christian music. Seems ironic, since Redeemer is a Christian university...

I'm tired of polluting my mind with crap. I don't need to be watching a movie where the 'f-bomb' is dropped every other word. To me, a script with that proves illiteracy. Even that word dropped in every day life isn't proof of intelligence. In fact, if the only vocabulary you possess is the ability to say 'fuck' every few words, you will not be able to sustain a job anywhere for very long.

So, amidst this pagan culture we live in (because it has not been Christian for a very long time), it is hard to find a way to stand up. I'm not saying that watching these shows is bad, but you have to be aware of what they teach, what their morals are, what having them on in the background as 'noise' is teaching your children, or those you live with. Are their morals Christian?

Some are skeptical of Rob Bell, but I think this clip shows what I am talking about.

In our skeptical society, soaking up everything, and believing nothing, having the TV on as background noise is dangerous.

Take a glance through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God." How is Christianity showing face in our culture? Is it at all? It's a secular world we live in now. The biggest danger is denying that.

Word of the Day: Contextualize

Quote of the Day: "You are like pineapple. Prickly on the outside, but sweet and sincere on the inside." Peter Frieswick