aldenswan.com

I am not complaining; there’s really no such thing as too many books, unless you’re in college and had to take out a loan to pay for a semester’s worth of overpriced textbooks.

I started out 2006 with a stack of new books, all of which I was anxious to read. I say “was,” because I’ve finished two of them. For several years, I read very few novels. For the last couple of years, I have been restless without at least one good novel lying around that I can get buried in. I admit that I have, on occasion, resorted to re-reading books, especially those by James Blaylock and Dean Koontz. I’m re-reading Life Expectancy now, because it was handy. I’ll probably put it aside and pick it up again whenever I need to fill in some time.

When you’re a internationally known book reviewer like I am, people send you books, for free. It’s a very cool thing. I am, by the way, known by at least 2 people internationally, so my claim is accurate. And, I sometimes get e-mails from people who appreciate my reviews, so I guess I could say that I am an internationally respected book reviewer; but, I won’t go that far.

Before the holidays I received an advance copy (catch that? - advance copy) of Brian McLaren’s soon-to-be-published new bestseller, The Secret Message of Jesus. I’m just a couple of chapters into it, but I have to say that so far, I am not terribly impressed. But, if you’ve read my entries on John Eldredge (see the categories on the sidebar), you know that my first impressions are not always correct. It seems that McLaren has been reading NT Wright, but I’m not sure he’s drawing great conclusions. I’ll let you know after I’m done with it.

Speaking of NT Wright (how’s that for a great segue?), shortly before the holidays I received an e-mail from Barnes & Nobel inviting me to buy NT Wright’s just released The Last Word (when you’re an internationally known book reviewer, sometimes Barnes & Nobel will send you personalized e-mails about books you might like to buy). The Last Word is about how both conservative and liberal theologians misread the Bible, a topic near to my heart, so I am quite anxious to read that.

The other book I read this month was Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, which is an extremely enjoyable book. It’s not one of those books that grips you and compels you to speed read it, it’s just one of those rare books - like Lord of the Rings, or something by Dickens - that you just enjoy, page by page.

So, books, books, and more books. Never too many, but certainly not enough time.

You’ve probably heard at least one sermon or read at least one book on spiritual growth which refers to us being “pruned” by God, usually in reference to John 15:1-2, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.”

I know next to nothing about pruning trees. (I know Jesus was referring to grapevines, not trees, but I think my tree analogy will work. I know nothing about pruning grapevines, either.) I know to trim off “shooters” that do nothing but sap energy from the “good” branches, and that dead branches can be removed. But other than that, you wouldn’t want me close to any of your trees. I have a number of trees on my property, but no fruit-bearing varieties. Any pruning we do is simply for aesthetics; that is, we want our trees to look nice. Branches are trimmed so the trees will “fill out,” and branches that go off in weird directions will be snipped for that reason. One commentary that I saw on John 15 said that God’s pruning process was designed to make us “look more like Jesus.” So, you can understand why my assumption (although to be honest, before now I never really thought that much about it) was that the more we are pruned, the better we will look.

For many years we had lived in the middle of suburban San Diego, in a development of nearly identical tract homes with very few mature trees. Five years ago we moved to Oregon, which is pretty much just a huge forest with a few clearings where people can live. We live one block from the edge of town, and right across the street from the city limits are some peach and cherry orchards, which I would drive by every day on my way to and from work. One day a couple of years ago, I was shocked at the aftermath of an apparent pruning: there were huge piles of branches on the ground below the trees, so much so that it seemed the poor trees had no branches left. I wish I had taken a photograph of it, but by the time I thought to go back with my camera, the debris had been removed, leaving just the poor naked trees to wait for leaves and new growth.

This year, another pruning has taken place in the orchard around the corner; not as drastic as that first year, but enough so that a couple of days ago I walked over and took some photos. As I stood looking for the best angle, I had an epiphany: Pruning makes you ugly, not better-looking. I stood looking at the freshly-pruned trees, which were obviously the most mature of the trees in the orchard from their size, thinking that they could have been models for the Headless Horseman’s tree in Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow. They were gnarled and scarred, and no longer had the same natural beauty and symmetry that younger trees on either side had. If my hunch is correct, it’s only a matter of time before the younger trees, too, will be pruned to the point of ugliness, for the sake of better (and more) fruit.

Pruning makes you ugly - I had never stopped to think about that before (and don’t recall this ever being preached on - chances are it’s not a popular sermon topic, and not one that’s apt to make visitors return to your church). Obviously, the point of this kind of pruning is the fruit, not the beauty of the tree.

Now for the deep spiritual insight that you’ve all been expecting: How many times do we look at ourselves and get disappointed at our ugliness? Unless, of course, you’re a guy who sees it as rugged good looks. But seriously, don’t we look at our scars and our gnarled and sometimes missing limbs, and start to think that God’s somehow forgotten to heal us? I think we forget that “looking good” - one of my few life-long goals - is not the point. We judge ourselves, and others, on meaningless things like symmetry and lack of what we consider to be defects. But, God’s job is to prune us, and pruning ruins all of that. Everything we think is fine, gets damaged or removed. What God knows is that a fruit tree’s only real asset is its ability to produce fruit, and therefore a scar is a beautiful thing.

I love the concept of “Freedom of Speech,” at least the way it was originally conceived. Freedom of Speech was granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, the founding fathers would probably have been a bit more concise in their wording had they conceived of the kind of perversities now considered to be “free speech” (some of which do not involve “speech” at all…), but that’s a topic for another time. I suspect they had in mind the abuses they had just fought against, specifically right to speak against the government without being shot or hanged (by the government, that is…).

Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing. So wonderful, in fact, that I have decided to establish my own “Alden’s Blurt Freedom of Speech Awards.” This just means that whenever I feel like it, I will pick someone who is exercising their Constitutional right of Free Speech, and spotlight them here. There will be no trophies, money or other prizes, just the prestige of being mentioned here.

Now, I should perhaps clarify my own perception of who best uses their freedom of speech. My own slightly warped definition of Freedom of Speech is “the right to say really stupid things in front of millions of people.” I believe that this proves and champions America’s Freedom of Speech better than anything. I am limiting, at this point, the potential candidates to those speaking about political issues, but I reserve the right to amend this at any time.

The problem, of course, is that there are just so many people to choose from.

I am very pleased to announce the first ever Alden’s Blurt Freedom of Speech Award is going to none other than my old Senator from California, Diane Feinstein. She was speaking about why the Democrats are likely to vote in a party-line vote against Samuel Alito. The issue, of course, is that he is simply not a liberal.

According to the AP, she “said things are different from when the Senate considered Breyer and Ginsburg, who were confirmed 87-9 and 96-3 respectively.” She stated:

“There was not the polarization within America that is there today and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction …“

Like Ginsburg was nominated because she was so moderate? And, like the “polarization” is something out of the Democrats’ control?

This absolutely brilliant statement by Ms. Feinstein, in my opinion (which is all that really matters here), has earned her this most prestigious honor, in proving that Free Speech doesn’t have to be true, thoughtful, or even logical. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what Freedom of Speech is all about.