Snapshot of the presidential race

As of this evening, in the RealClearPolitics national polling average, John McCain has a 2.9 point lead over Barack Obama. That’s within the margin of error, of course, but still, it’s a pretty good bounce.
Much depends, of course, on whether the bounce is transitory or hangs around for a while, but there are reasons to think it might stick. One is that the huge edge in voter identification that Democrats enjoyed—it was 6% in November 2006 and had climbed over 10% this past May—has been steadily eroding; by last month it was down to 5.7%. Now, according to the Gallup/USA Today poll, that edge has dropped to just 1%, which is less even than the Democratic Party had in 2004. Another is that according to the Rasmussen tracking poll a higher percentage of McCain voters than Obama voters are certain about their vote (41%-38%); not only is Sen. Obama behind in the polls, more of those who say they plan to vote for him are open to changing their mind. It’s also worth noting that the ABC poll reports a 20-point swing in Sen. McCain’s favor among white women; Gallup finds a smaller shift among all women, but a huge shift in support among independents (now 52%-37% in his favor). As well, after all the talk about Sen. Obama reaching beyond the Democratic base, pursuing a 50-state strategy and drawing votes from Republican evangelicals, the focus is back on swing states and he’s doing no better with evangelicals than Kerry did.That said, if you take RCP’s electoral map with every state projected one way or the other, they do still give Obama/Biden the win in electoral votes, 273-265:
That’s somewhat misleading, however, because most of the state poll numbers they’re using are pretty old. Thus, for instance, New Hampshire:
As you can see, their average gives Sen. Obama a paper-thin lead—but the newest poll there was finished on the 18th of August, and the others are one and three and a half months older. Given that Sen. McCain has gained a fair bit on Sen. Obama in that time, it would seem likely that New Hampshire is now leaning the other way; and if you flip them and leave everyone else the same, you get a 269-269 tie.Other interesting cases to consider include Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado:


In Michigan and Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama’s decent lead in the poll average is based largely on old polls; in the one up-to-date poll in each state, his lead is razor-thin—one point in Michigan, two points in Pennsylvania; when the other polls catch up, they will likely show the effects of the McCain bounce. At this point, while you’d have to say both are leaning toward him, the tilt would seem to be very slight; both states are very much in play. As for Colorado, there we see no such pattern, but there is a poll not included in this average, commissioned by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which shows Sen. McCain up by two. Given that Rasmussen in Colorado shows no signs of a bounce for the McCain campaign, there doesn’t seem reason to expect the other polls to move significantly in his direction, leaving Colorado also leaning slightly against him.Others might ask, what about states that could flip the other way? What about Ohio? Well, take a look:
At this point, the numbers on Ohio don’t look promising for the Obama campaign; yes, the average is quite close, but the only recent poll, Rasmussen, gives Sen. McCain a seven-point lead, whereas even after the Democratic convention, Sen. Obama was only up two. Virginia‘s more interesting, though:
There, we have two polls which are up to date, and both show a two-point lead for Sen. McCain. He ought to be able to carry the state, but he’s not going to be able to take it for granted—it appears that the Old Dominion could readily go either way.So what does this all mean? Well, on my read, the truest picture of the race is this:
Looking at that, I tend to think there’s more opportunity for the GOP to pull states out of the Democratic column than vice versa; the momentum is going their way, and Sarah Palin looks like someone who will have particular effectiveness appealing to blue-collar Democrats in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Sen. Obama doesn’t have a similar advantage to help him go after states like Ohio, Virginia, Missouri and Florida.That, of course, is as of now; we need only look back at the serpentine course this presidential election has already taken to be reminded how quickly—and strangely—things can change. Certainly there’s no room for overconfidence on the part of the GOP; they’re in a dogfight, and at best have an even shot at coming out on top. But when you consider that most pundits expected them to be all but writing the concession speech at this point of the campaign, an even shot looks pretty good.

The attractional church: a paradigm for abusive ministry?

(Note: this was originally posted on August 28—and then had the misfortune to be swamped by political commentary. I’ve bumped it up in hopes that folks who might be interested who might have missed it before will catch it.)

I want, if I can, to start a conversation here. Over the past year or so, I’ve gotten acquainted to one degree or another, starting through Hap, with a lot of people who’ve left the church, either temporarily or for good, after being hurt by churches with a bad approach to ministry—people like Erin, Barry, Tyler Dawn, Barb, and Katherine Gunn—along with others like Kathy Escobar and Heather who had reason to leave but didn’t. (This is not by any means an exhaustive list.) I’ve also continued to chew on what it means for the church to be missional; along those lines, I’ve appreciated Jared Wilson‘s ongoing work contrasting the missional paradigm with what he calls the attractional-church paradigm. For those of you who haven’t followed that, you can find his overview here, and his ongoing overview at SearchWarp in Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Now, up until recently, I thought of these as just two separate phenomena. On the one hand, you have bad churches. On the other, you have a bad ministry paradigm. I’m starting to wonder, though, if there might be a connection.

What got me thinking about that was Jared’s post “Mega(church)lomania”, in which he linked to and quoted a post by a Dr. Jim West called “Speaking Of The Outrage That Is The Mega-Church…” that I found very interesting. First, let me note one of Jared’s comments on Dr. West’s post:

When I agree with folks who are harshing on the megachurch vibe, it is typically because what I see them criticizing is the attractional model of church, and while I’ve gone on record several times acknowledging that there are certainly aspects of our ecclesiology and methodology that can be attractional, I think the attractional mode of “doing church” is counterproductive to discipleship. (Because it doesn’t work.)

Now, with that in mind, here are some of Dr. West’s comments on the megachurch, which as Jared says apply not to the size of the church but to its approach, and are really a critique of the attractional model in all sizes of congregation:

Mega churches exist for one simple reason—the accumulation of wealth. Churches, you see, once upon a time would grow, flourish, and in order to extend their ministry establish mission churches in areas where no church work existed. Their goal in the establishment of such churches was to realize the goal of local churches sprouting up everywhere. Neighborhood churches, though, over time, became too small and offered too little to the consumeristic American who wanted more and more.

So, in order to quench the unending thirst of American Christians, Churches ended their missionary outreach and instead of planting small churches in local neighborhoods they began drawing people from miles and miles away. This allowed them to offer more glitzy programs for the thirsting public (a public which thirsts not for righteousness but for entertainment). It also allowed them to collect larger offerings and once that pandora’s box was opened, it became a free for all for as many members as possible concentrated in the fewest churches possible.

Churches turned inward rather than outward . . .

Born then was the mega church and at her helm, the millionaire (or close to it) mega church pastor. Said pastor now had a vested interest not in missions and church planting but in making sure that 1) no one left (so that money wouldn’t seep out) and 2) no one found out how much they actually earned as chairman of the board of the local church corporation (in the most demonic sense of the word).

The mega church is, in other words, the church turned in on itself. It is the logical conclusion of a christianity that has lost its way and which instead of doing the work of the ministry now becomes itself the sole recipient of any and all ministerial efforts.

Now, I know full well that everyone’s story is different. If you go to Barb’s blog and read her posts on why she and her husband left their church, you’ll find elements of charismatic/Pentecostal thinking that figure strongly in the story. For Erin, there was the”Better Christian Woman” box into which her church tried to squeeze her. No one’s experience exactly conforms to the experimental model. That said, I do think there’s a common theme that runs through a lot of them, anyway, and it’s the attractional church paradigm. It’s the church that has turned in on itself and exists for the accumulation of resources (not just wealth, but also people, prestige, and influence) and the building up of the glory of its leaders—because in that mindset, the people of the church are there for the sake of those leaders, to serve their purposes, and over time, tend to come to be treated accordingly.

Along with that, since the numerical success of such churches depends on quick attraction, there’s a need to preach a sort of quick-fix instant-oatmeal version of Christianity; my wife today called it a form of spiritual crash dieting, the sort of thing that in the short term helps you look good for the people you want to impress but in the end just screws up your metabolism. Not only is this kind of thing not the gospel preaching of Jesus that gives real life, but it sets up unreasonable expectations—see how easy this is? Follow these 27 simple steps and you too can have your best life now!—and if you can’t live up to those expectations and look just as good as everyone else, well, there must be something wrong with you and you must not be much of a Christian.

The result of this? Burnout. Jared captures it well:

[Christine] Wicker surveys attractional church burnout, which I’ve witnessed numerous times personally. Committed Christians are used up and spit out in service to the Program, and if they ever so much as suggest something isn’t right, they are accused of being immature and told to go self-feed or whatever. Church isn’t “for them,” they are sometimes told, which is doubly hurtful when the volunteer is a believer who was a seeker or baby Christian when they first entered the church. The church itself makes it clear the volunteer has outgrown the church, and then it will act surprised or indignant when the volunteer realizes he has outgrown it and takes his service elsewhere. . . .

Conversion to disillusionment averages about 8 years. That’s not a very good track record and does not bode well for the attractional future.

As I say, I could be off base; but what folks like Kathy Escobar and Tyler Dawn are talking about, from one side, and what others like Dr. Jim West and Jared Wilson are talking about, from the other, sounds like pretty much the same lump of coal to me. And why shouldn’t it be? When you have congregations that have come to exist for the accumulation of resources, driven by the consumerist mindset, should we be surprised if they turn out to be organizations that burn out those who want to serve, and chew up and spit out those who dare to ask questions or challenge the leadership?

What I want to invite you to do, then, is to think about this, talk about it, and tell me if you think this makes sense. I’ll try to contact all the folks I’ve actually named in this post to see what each of you have to say, but I certainly want broader input as well—if you have a thought, pro or con, or if you have a question because I’ve been “clear like mud,” please fire away regardless. Leave a comment here or post about it on your own blog, whichever you prefer (though if you do the latter, please leave a link in the comments here so that I don’t miss what you have to say); I just want to get the conversation started.

Persistent prayer and the faithfulness of God

Hap has a really good post up on prayer, as of yesterday, which I commend to your attention. I’ve written about some of this before, here and here; for some people, faith and belief and persistent prayer come easy, but I’m not one of them. I don’t know whether the man in Mark 9 meant the same thing when he cried out, “Lord, I believe! Help my unbelief” that I do—but it’s something I find myself praying a fair bit anyway, because trust comes hard, and I just have to believe that God’s answer to prayer is dependent on his faithfulness, not on my faith. And I do believe that, because prayer isn’t about us changing God, but God changing us, and his faithfulness is neither contingent nor in short supply: it is unending.

Barack Obama’s Ayers challenge

When reports of Sen. Obama’s connection to Weathermen Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn first surfaced, he tried to dismiss Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and Ayers’ misdeeds as ancient history. Skeptics pointed out that Ayers’ radical views aren’t past tense, but very much present tense, and saw Sen. Obama’s association with him, along with his close relationship with people like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., as evidence of his comfort with radical leftist views, and of a general “no enemies to the left” policy.And that was about as much as people thought about it, until recently. I’m not sure who first raised the question of why Sen. Obama, with a pretty thin résumé that’s particularly lacking in executive experience, was no longer taking credit for his time as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), a foundation which Ayers helped found. Given that the foundation had a considerable amount of money (I’ve seen the figure $50 million bandied about, but I don’t have any hard data), this would seem to be experience well worth talking about. Given that, why was Sen. Obama keeping it so quiet?Stanley Kurtz decided to try to find out—and that’s when the fun began. When he asked to see the CAC’s internal files, held by the Daley Library at the University of Illinois-Chicago, he was initially told he would be allowed to do so, and then the library began stonewalling him, offering a shifting collection of reasons to justify their actions.When Kurtz subsequently went on WGN-AM in Chicago to talk about his efforts with radio host Milt Rosenburg (audio here), the Obama campaign exploded. Rosenburg’s producer, Zack Christenson, invited the campaign to send someone to appear on the show with Kurtz, but they refused; instead, they tried to defeat the story by brute force. The campaign sent out an e-mail urging supporters to complain to WGN, calling Kurtz a “smear-merchant” and a “slimy character assassin” “pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations” via “divisive, destructive ranting.” Quite a lot of opprobrium for a guy who was just trying to get at some documents—he hadn’t even said anything yet. The e-mail also implicitly accused WGN of preventing the Obama campaign from responding to Kurtz, when in fact it was their choice not to send someone on the show.Now, this suggests one of two things. One, it’s possible that the Obama campaign’s reaction was justified by something truly explosive in those files. Honestly, though, that seems unlikely to me; I suppose nothing is impossible, especially in Chicago politics, but short of the CAC funding Sen. Obama’s 2004 run for Senate, it’s hard to see where there’s room for a true scandal in there. The most that would seem likely would be evidence that Sen. Obama and Bill Ayers were in fact close friends and associates.If that’s the case, then the Obama campaign appears to be overreacting in truly startling fashion. For one thing, it already seems pretty clear that Bill Ayers wasn’t just “a guy who lives in [Sen. Obama’s] neighborhood”; as Kurtz notes in the article linked above, the information that is publicly available leaves little doubt that they worked together pretty closely, and on a friendly basis. But if all there is in the CAC records is confirmation that they worked together and that Sen. Obama was comfortable with Ayers’ efforts and positions—well, honestly, conservatives already suspect that, liberals don’t care, and I don’t see that being an issue that sways a lot of folks in the middle. They probably half-suspect it as well, but it was a few years ago, and there are really more important things to worry about. If that’s all it is, the Obama campaign shouldn’t have tried to fight Kurtz; they should have just let him have his access, dig up what he’s going to dig up, and report it, then weathered the dust-up and gone on, confident that by November it will all be old news. Fighting as they did, if it wasn’t absolutely necessary, only hurts their candidate by drawing attention to the story and making it look as if he has something to hide—or, worse, something to be afraid of. That suggests that Sen. Obama’s biggest challenge isn’t Bill Ayers: it’s his own campaign.Update: of course, that assumes that Ayers doesn’t keep stirring the pot with stuff like this . . .

I am the descendant of the original spinner

I don’t know what to make of this tidbit that John Steele Gordon pulled up, but it’s interesting. It also makes my great-great-ever-so-great-granddaddy look like a pretty conniving politician, which isn’t an image I’d ever associated with him before.

When William Henry Harrison ran for president in 1840, his supporters put out one of the earliest pieces of American political ephemera, a handkerchief printed with scenes of his life. It featured, of course, the Battle of Tippecanoe, but it also showed his supposed birthplace: a small log cabin with smoke curling out of the chimney. Just plain folks was Ol’ Tippecanoe.There was only one problem. William Henry Harrison, in fact, was born at Berkeley Plantation, one of Virginia’s grandest 18th-century houses, on the James River. It was the home of his father, Benjamin Harrison, who was governor of Virginia and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. The lawn at Berkeley was capacious enough for the Army of the Potomac to camp there during the Civil War.The Whig campaign of 1840 accused Harrison’s main opponent, President Martin Van Buren, of being an aristocrat, eating off gold spoons in “the Palace.” But Van Buren’s father had been only a simple farmer and part-time tavern keeper.It was all exceedingly fake. It also worked: Harrison clobbered Van Buren in the election.

Barack Obama’s foreign-policy judgment

Sen. Obama: Iran is not a serious threat.

His mistake here: failing to understand that the Soviet Union, though a greater conventional military threat than Iran, was also a more predictable threat, and one with which we could negotiate on the basis of shared Western assumptions. Trying to deal with Iran on that basis would be like trying to keep vipers off your property by building a split-rail fence—just because it kept the neighbor’s bull where he belongs doesn’t mean it’s going to stop a snake.Here’s the McCain campaign’s take on that:

And here’s part of the reason why:

This man is not by any means representative of all Muslims—indeed, I would be surprised to find that his understanding of the world is even all that common among Muslims in most places—but he is representative of the sort of attitudes the ayatollahs of Iran are trying to foster and foment among Muslims around the world. Islam as such is not the enemy, but Islamic governments and movements which consider us to be the enemy (such as the government of Iran and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hamas) most definitely are—and they’re enemies which cannot be dismissed as “not serious” simply because they don’t have large conventional forces. They have other ways of attacking us, they are perfectly capable of developing WMDs, and they are far, far harder to deter than the Soviet Union was because they don’t share a Western value system; telling them, “don’t do that or we’ll kill you” isn’t much of a threat if they’re convinced that doing that will please Allah and earn them a special place in paradise. As such, they’re perfectly capable of doing something perfectly crazy if we don’t take them very seriously as a threat.Sen. Obama doesn’t appear to understand this. Unfortunately, given that Joe Biden told the Israelis, “Iran is going to be nuclear—deal with it,” it appears his running mate doesn’t either. This doesn’t bode well if they win in November.

The Inheritance of the Saints

(Psalm 96; Colossians 1:1-14)

One of the great temptations of the Christian life, from the very beginning, has been to add to it. C. S. Lewis talks about one aspect of this in The Screwtape Letters, dubbing it “Christianity And”; and while he focuses there on one particular form of this temptation, he sets out its essence very clearly: to add anything at all to the gospel is to nullify it altogether, to “substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring.” We can be tempted into this error out of the desire to serve a particular cause—“Christianity and the Hot-Button Issue,” “Christianity and Your Chosen Political Party”—or the desire to please others, or spiritual pride, or the desire to have God on our own terms, or the fear that Christ really isn’t enough, or even a misunderstanding of what the gospel of Jesus Christ really is and means. There are a lot of reasons, but the mistake is the same: believing that Christ plus something else equals more than Christ alone. As Paul is at pains to tell the Colossians, that’s exactly wrong. To add anything to Christ is to lose Christ, but to have him alone is to have everything.

In the church in Colossae, the issue was accommodation to Judaism. This was a common problem in the churches of the first century; you had Jewish leaders working overtime to pull people back from the church to the synagogue, and others within the church, known as Judaizers, who wanted to stay in the church but bring the synagogue along with them. Their attitude may seem strange to a lot of us, but it’s really quite understandable when you think about it. For the early church, how they were supposed to relate to their Jewish roots was a real question—what should they keep, and what should they leave behind? And if there were those who wanted to throw out the entire Old Testament as outdated and irrelevant, it’s no surprise that there were also those who firmly believed that Christians had to keep on being fully observant Jews—circumcision, food laws, the whole nine yards. Tell truth, they had some reason for their position—after all, hadn’t Jesus said that he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it? What they missed was the way in which Jesus had fulfilled the Law, and its consequences for their position.

Now, in the church in Colossae, Paul wasn’t dealing with the usual sort of Jewish influence; rather than the Judaizers he’d fought in the Galatian churches and elsewhere, the Colossian church seems to have fallen under the sway of a mystical strain of Judaism that promised its followers a spiritual ascent into heaven, into the presence of the celestial throne of God. This, too, taught them that obedience to the Law was necessary for salvation in addition to Jesus, but it added another incentive: if you’ll just go farther, do more, obey even stricter rules, then you can have a special experience of God that ordinary folks don’t get to have. If you want to really know God, to experience his fullness and feel his presence, you can have that in your life, if you just jump through all these hoops that we tell you to jump through. Again, Jesus alone is not enough, this time to know God and have a relationship with him—legalism is the only way.

In response to this, Paul tells the Colossians that if they really want to draw close to God, they’re going the wrong direction. In starting to follow this teaching, they’re moving away from Christ—they’re assuming that Christ is not enough, that they have to add these other rituals and religious observances if they want to know God—and in so doing, they are trading in the freedom of God for slavery to worldly ideas. The root of the problem here is that they don’t really understand who Jesus is, or what he did for them, much less what that means for their lives; they don’t take him or his work seriously enough, because they haven’t gotten their minds around the staggering reality and significance of his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. They have not truly grasped that their extraordinary efforts are unnecessary, and even counterproductive, because everything they’re trying to earn, they’ve already been given. That’s why they’re going off the rails, and that’s why Paul sets out in this letter to make all this clear for them.

Now, from his thanksgiving, we can see that there’s still a lot to be said for the Colossian church. They’re not in the kind of shape the Galatian churches were in, where Paul skipped the thanksgiving in his letter altogether and just started yelling at them right off the bat; here, he gives thanks for their faith in Christ and their love for each other, which were bearing fruit in growth—both in numbers and in spiritual maturity. This is telling; for all that they’re starting to follow some false teachers, their hearts are still very much in the right place. They simply need to be taught to recognize error when they see it. Note, by the way, the reason and foundation for their faith and love: “the hope laid up for you in heaven.” As will become clear over the course of the letter, that hope is nothing and no one other than Jesus Christ himself.

As we typically see in Paul, and as we talked about last week with Philemon, his thanksgiving for the Colossians is joined to prayer for them, and indeed moves him to prayer for them. And notice what he prays—if you were here last week, this might sound pretty familiar. Paul tells Philemon that he’s praying for him so that the communion of his faith—the community, the body, of faith of which he is a part, which shaped him and which he has shaped—would be effective in the full knowledge of all the good that is ours in Christ; in other words, that Philemon would be used by God to help bring about what Paul has been praying for the church in Colossae as a whole. As we saw last week, in the biblical mindset, knowledge isn’t just a head thing, it’s active and experiential: you can’t really claim to know something until you’ve integrated it into your life, until it’s reflected on a daily basis in the choices you make and the attitudes in which you make those choices.

The flip side to this is that it means that what you know, the content of your understanding, matters; if you get the head stuff wrong, you’re going to get the life stuff wrong, too. We can see, given that, why Paul was so concerned in his letter to Philemon, because the Colossians have started to buy into something that is very, very far from the truth—not knowledge, but anti-knowledge—and though for now, their hearts are still in the right place, that will change over time unless their false understanding of God is corrected. They’re seeking the right things, spiritual wisdom and understanding and the knowledge of God’s will, but they’re looking, and moving, in the wrong direction. Paul’s prayer, then, is that they would be turned around, that they would set aside their pursuit of false knowledge through false experience and allow the Spirit of God to fill them instead with the true knowledge of God and his will—so that they would then do God’s will, leading “lives worthy of the Lord,” lives that give honor to him by faithfully representing his character and his will in this world.

Of course, Paul recognizes that this requires strength beyond our own merely human capacity, and so he prays for the Colossians that they might be filled, not only with the knowledge of God, but with the power of God—power to do his will, power to stand firm in the face of opposition and difficult times, and power to remain joyful and grateful to God no matter what may come. The Christian life is not meant to be a life of grim endurance through the struggles and sorrows of this world, but a life of joy and peace—of victory, not necessarily over them, but in their midst. This is something the world cannot give—only God can; it’s only possible by his power. It’s only possible because we have been given something the world doesn’t have: a share in the inheritance prepared for the saints in the realm of light, the hope laid up for us in heaven. Christ has conquered the power of darkness—by his sacrifice on the cross, he has bought our freedom from the power of sin—and through the work of Christ, God has rescued us from that power and brought us into the kingdom of his beloved Son.

With this statement, Paul strikes the note that will ring through this entire letter—a note which indeed can be heard throughout all his letters: every aspect of our salvation, and indeed, every aspect of the life which God gives us, is contained in Christ. Nothing is lacking in his work—nothing more is needed; nor is there anything our own efforts can add to what he has done. There is no space for spiritual pride in the Christian life, because there is nothing to our own credit in our salvation, nothing we’ve earned and nothing of our own deserving; there is only room for gratitude and praise to Jesus, because he’s done it all. Yes, he calls us to live life in a new way, different from the way the world lives, but not in order to earn his favor or to repay the debt we owe him; both are beyond our power. Rather, he calls us to live in accordance with his will because that’s the logical working-out of the new life he has given us, and out of gratitude for that gift. We live differently, or should, because we know differently, think differently, believe differently, love differently—our motivations have been changed, and that changes the way in which we live our lives. But we do so not out of duty, but out of love and gratitude; and not in our own power, but in the power of the Spirit of Christ who is within us.

Jesus Brand Spirituality: Introduction

A number of weeks ago, I wrote a post highlighting an extremely positive review of a book called Jesus Brand Spirituality: He Wants His Religion Back. In response, I received a friendly communication from the author, Ken Wilson, the senior pastor of the Ann Arbor Vineyard, asking me if I wanted a copy. That was an easy one (of course I did), and in return for his generosity I promised to review the book once I’d finished it.

Unfortunately, various circumstances delayed me in starting the book, which I was only able to begin reading this past weekend, so I have not yet been able to redeem my word to the Rev. Wilson. I have, however, greatly appreciated the book so far, and am eager to do so. However, never having written a true review essay, I’m a bit dubious of my ability to do it justice by reading the whole book and writing on it all at once; what’s more, doing so properly would produce a very long piece which might not be well-suited to the medium of a blog. So, what I’ve decided to do is to comment on the book a chapter at a time, and then once I’ve finished, write a concluding post with final commentary. I realize that this has its drawbacks, but I think it’s probably the best way to do it. It’s also the quickest way to get started, which factors into my thinking as well.

I hope to get the post on the first chapter up in the next day or two—unfortunately, it isn’t finished yet, but those who follow this blog will be aware that I’ve had one or two other minor matters occupying a lot of my attention here. For now, I’ll close with one of Phyllis Tickle’s encomia from her foreword:

This . . . is a book that contains niches and corridors and apses of beauty that catch my thorax and make me feel the salt and burn of beauty rising.