Take a photo of a barcode or cover
shelfreflectionofficial's Reviews (844)
“No matter how bad the person, we all cling to the days of innocence we remember from our youth.”
The book begins with a group of kids standing over a grave taking turns shooting a gun into its depths.
“What have we done?” one of the boys asks.
This is an action-packed thrill ride as the kids from that grave site are now adults and find themselves being hunted down.
I read this book in two days! It’s very suspenseful and reads fast. It does have some violence but it’s not too descriptive.
I don’t know if the characters are really that likable but I was reading it for the suspense and mystery- what did they do when they were younger, who is hunting them now, and why?
And to that effect, I was highly satisfied.
The Characters and Plot
Jenna- trained as an assassin as a teen (we don’t get that full story unfortunately) but has left that life behind, trying to build a normal family now
Donnie- member of a once popular band and has problems with drugs, sex, and alcohol
Nico- executive producer for a reality show about mining, has a gambling problem and is indebted to a ruthless Irish mob boss
All three of these people were part of Savior’s House foster care when they were younger. But it was not a safe place to be and girls kept going missing.
“They sit in silence for a while. Like they’re all wondering when life will take a turn for them. When they won’t be the outcasts, when they won’t have to face the indignities of the lunchroom, when they won’t have to go to bed worried about closing their eyes, when they’ll have families again.”
They had to rely on each other— along with Benny, Arty, and others— to get through it until something caused the home to close down. They each grow to find their own success.
Finlay wastes no time getting right to the action.
Jenna is forced to do one more kill in order to protect her new family. But she purposely misses when she realizes the person she is meant to kill was Arty. After she botches the mission, she finds herself on the run.
Donnie is gigging on a cruise ship. One night while he’s particularly drunk, a woman forces him at gunpoint to jump off the ship in the middle of the ocean.
Nico gets a text to meet someone in one of the mines. But it’s not his friend who shows up, it’s a woman who chases him further into the mine then leaves and detonates an explosive to cause the mine to cave in.
All three were supposed to die, but they are still alive, confused, and afraid.
It turns out, the catalyst for these events was the murder of their friend, Benny, who had grown up to become a well-known lawyer and federal judge in D.C.
They are all being hunted by some vicious, sociopathic hired killers who don’t kill for the money, but for the sport.
The friends must connect with each other and revisit their past “on a rainy night twenty-five years ago on a patch of misery” to figure out why they are targets and how they can save themselves and their families before anyone else ends up like Benny.
Comments
As I said earlier, there is a lot of violence. Part of that violence comes at the end of a “penetrating captive bolt” also known as a cowpuncher. It’s a device used to kill cows by punching a steel rod into their brains. This is the weapon of choice for one of the hired killers. She does not use it on brains, but on legs. Whether this is realistic to be used on humans without immediate death is not something I know and I’m not sure I want to Google that.
The hired killers are actually pretty bad at their job. Of course, if they were successful right off the bat we wouldn’t have a book, but they seem a bit like bumbling killers. This may be a slight spoiler here: but they are identical twins, separated at birth, but somehow found each other in college and realized they both enjoy killing people. They have quite the backstory that we never really learn about.
Also the FBI agent hired to investigate the death of the federal judge is not that great at his job considering his demise.
I was really hoping one of the twists would be that Benny wasn’t actually dead and he comes back to save the day like he always did when they were younger. He was probably my favorite character and he wasn’t even there!
Recommendation
It appears like this book has gotten some mixed reviews. Many reviewers who have enjoyed Finlay’s previous books found ‘What Have We Done’ to be too much of an adrenaline thriller and not enough character development. I suppose this is true. But if you’re like me, sometimes you just want an intense thriller and you don’t necessarily care how the characters change.
Sure, I didn’t find the characters likable at the beginning or in the end. I didn’t see much redemption to their characters in the epilogue. But what I liked and would recommend this book for was the action/suspense/mystery.
However, if you don’t like violence, you may not like this one. After all, it’s full of assassins.
I read Finlay’s book, The Night Shift, and I liked that one too. I critiqued that one for having ‘a lot’ of swearing but it actually had less f-words than this one. The more I read, the more I realize my perspective on ‘a lot’ has somewhat shifted. There is definitely a difference between books with 60+ f-words and ones with 30.
I prefer clean novels, but for some reason the swearing in this book didn’t seem as distracting as it often does.
I feel like even if you don’t like swearing, this book may still be worth your time because of the edge-of-your-seat action.
Overall, I really liked this book but would understand if it’s not your cup of tea!
[Content Advisory: 33 f-words, 27 s-words; no sexual content other than implied abuse]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
The book begins with a group of kids standing over a grave taking turns shooting a gun into its depths.
“What have we done?” one of the boys asks.
This is an action-packed thrill ride as the kids from that grave site are now adults and find themselves being hunted down.
I read this book in two days! It’s very suspenseful and reads fast. It does have some violence but it’s not too descriptive.
I don’t know if the characters are really that likable but I was reading it for the suspense and mystery- what did they do when they were younger, who is hunting them now, and why?
And to that effect, I was highly satisfied.
The Characters and Plot
Jenna- trained as an assassin as a teen (we don’t get that full story unfortunately) but has left that life behind, trying to build a normal family now
Donnie- member of a once popular band and has problems with drugs, sex, and alcohol
Nico- executive producer for a reality show about mining, has a gambling problem and is indebted to a ruthless Irish mob boss
All three of these people were part of Savior’s House foster care when they were younger. But it was not a safe place to be and girls kept going missing.
“They sit in silence for a while. Like they’re all wondering when life will take a turn for them. When they won’t be the outcasts, when they won’t have to face the indignities of the lunchroom, when they won’t have to go to bed worried about closing their eyes, when they’ll have families again.”
They had to rely on each other— along with Benny, Arty, and others— to get through it until something caused the home to close down. They each grow to find their own success.
Finlay wastes no time getting right to the action.
Jenna is forced to do one more kill in order to protect her new family. But she purposely misses when she realizes the person she is meant to kill was Arty. After she botches the mission, she finds herself on the run.
Donnie is gigging on a cruise ship. One night while he’s particularly drunk, a woman forces him at gunpoint to jump off the ship in the middle of the ocean.
Nico gets a text to meet someone in one of the mines. But it’s not his friend who shows up, it’s a woman who chases him further into the mine then leaves and detonates an explosive to cause the mine to cave in.
All three were supposed to die, but they are still alive, confused, and afraid.
It turns out, the catalyst for these events was the murder of their friend, Benny, who had grown up to become a well-known lawyer and federal judge in D.C.
They are all being hunted by some vicious, sociopathic hired killers who don’t kill for the money, but for the sport.
The friends must connect with each other and revisit their past “on a rainy night twenty-five years ago on a patch of misery” to figure out why they are targets and how they can save themselves and their families before anyone else ends up like Benny.
Comments
As I said earlier, there is a lot of violence. Part of that violence comes at the end of a “penetrating captive bolt” also known as a cowpuncher. It’s a device used to kill cows by punching a steel rod into their brains. This is the weapon of choice for one of the hired killers. She does not use it on brains, but on legs. Whether this is realistic to be used on humans without immediate death is not something I know and I’m not sure I want to Google that.
The hired killers are actually pretty bad at their job. Of course, if they were successful right off the bat we wouldn’t have a book, but they seem a bit like bumbling killers. This may be a slight spoiler here: but they are identical twins, separated at birth, but somehow found each other in college and realized they both enjoy killing people. They have quite the backstory that we never really learn about.
Also the FBI agent hired to investigate the death of the federal judge is not that great at his job considering his demise.
I was really hoping one of the twists would be that Benny wasn’t actually dead and he comes back to save the day like he always did when they were younger. He was probably my favorite character and he wasn’t even there!
Spoiler
I’m still confused about one thing… So… this is all because of Nico? He needed money to pay off his debt so he blackmailed his own friends? Which led to the eventual events? How come no one is mad at him? I don’t know if I felt the guilt from him on this part…Recommendation
It appears like this book has gotten some mixed reviews. Many reviewers who have enjoyed Finlay’s previous books found ‘What Have We Done’ to be too much of an adrenaline thriller and not enough character development. I suppose this is true. But if you’re like me, sometimes you just want an intense thriller and you don’t necessarily care how the characters change.
Sure, I didn’t find the characters likable at the beginning or in the end. I didn’t see much redemption to their characters in the epilogue. But what I liked and would recommend this book for was the action/suspense/mystery.
However, if you don’t like violence, you may not like this one. After all, it’s full of assassins.
I read Finlay’s book, The Night Shift, and I liked that one too. I critiqued that one for having ‘a lot’ of swearing but it actually had less f-words than this one. The more I read, the more I realize my perspective on ‘a lot’ has somewhat shifted. There is definitely a difference between books with 60+ f-words and ones with 30.
I prefer clean novels, but for some reason the swearing in this book didn’t seem as distracting as it often does.
I feel like even if you don’t like swearing, this book may still be worth your time because of the edge-of-your-seat action.
Overall, I really liked this book but would understand if it’s not your cup of tea!
[Content Advisory: 33 f-words, 27 s-words; no sexual content other than implied abuse]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
I liked Big Little Lies better than this one but it was still a decent read. The whole “ever since the bbq” suspense line got old after awhile and based on their present lives I started to wonder if it was even going to be a ‘big’ event that occurred. Still haven’t decided on that one. Then once you find out what happened the ending of the book seems to drag a bit. There was suspense and everything but I think she wrote it better in Big Little Lies.
“Take only memories, leave only footprints.”
This book is part fun-facts-about-National-Parks, part memoir, part conservation commentary.
In 2016, on the 100th Anniversary of the National Park Service, Conor Knighton, CBS correspondent, was inspired to take a year of his life to visit all 59 National Parks.
His fiance had also just broken off their engagement and he needed an escape from his life. Nature was his medicine— just like Teddy Roosevelt who said “he immersed himself in nature to heal a broken heart” after losing both his wife and his mother on the same Valentine’s Day.
Conor moved out, sold his stuff, and began life on the road, criss-crossing the road for 52 weeks, exploring both what the country’s national parks and each area’s Tinder pool had to offer.
He begins at the most eastern point of the US to see the first glimpses of light and he ends on the west coast seeing the last light disappear over the horizon. A full year of beauty and contemplation book-ended perfectly.
I was actually surprised how much I loved this book.
The book cover doesn’t do much for me. Nick Offerman’s book, Where the Deer and the Antelope Play, left me with a bad taste in my mouth about nature books. And I was worried it would become repetitive to talk about each park.
But Conor is a brilliant writer. This book was informative, entertaining, funny, thought-provoking, and inspiring. Plus he’s not afraid of using a pun and I’m a fan of that.
He does not organize his experience alphabetically or chronologically through the parks, but through deeper threads he reflected on throughout his year. For example, some of the chapters are titled: Love; Travelers; Disconnected; God; Sound; Borders, etc.
Many of his reflections were because of his current life crisis with losing the love of his life and not knowing what direction to take his life. But even though he shares his personal journey it was still insightful as a reader and really makes you realize how good nature is for contemplation, disconnecting with the man-made world, and reconnecting with the Creator.
You’ll read this and explore the parks vicariously through him and/or you’ll start planning your next trip. I’ve only been to 11 national parks but you can bet I’ve added a lot more on my list of must-see places.
Thankfully he includes two sections of color photo pages to give us some visuals to the things he encountered, but I wish there were more. I’m sure the way they did it made the most sense in terms of publishing and cost, but I would have liked to see multiple color photo pages for each chapter!
Though the main point of his book was not discuss a Creator or to debate climate change and conservation, they are mentioned and I’ve included a couple sections in my review about them for those who are interested.
Nature and God
You can’t write or read a book about nature without thinking about how the nature got there. Conor has an entire chapter called ‘God’ in which he reflects in awe that it’s hard to see the amazing things in nature and not believe a Creator had a hand in it.
After all, Scripture tells us:
“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.” (Psalm 19:1-2)
He quotes John Muir (John Muir is to nature as Michael Jordan is to basketball) who said that he decided to wander America to “study the inventions of God… and to store my mind with the Lord’s beauty.”
However, though he admits a Creator, based on the rest of the book, Conor definitely believes in evolution and a world that is billions of years old. I personally do not believe this and the book A Biblical Case Against Theistic Evolution provides a pretty compelling case to reject large scale evolution.
One thing Conor talked about that really resonated with me was when he compared nature to cathedrals. The towering trees and filtered light, the majestic beauty of regal mountains. The natural ‘church’ of God— his creation.
He compares that with the intricate cathedrals you’ll find in Europe. He reflects that he looks at the architecture, the gold, the embellishments, the grandiosity of these structures, and just like nature, he thinks about who created them.
A building created for people to worship God that becomes a glorification of man and what people can make instead of the ultimate Creator.
I’ve been to the Vatican in Rome and the Duomo in Florence and can attest to this feeling. Yes, it’s a beautiful and amazing creation. But does it make me think more about God? Not really. Perhaps I praise God for the abilities and gifts he’s given man to create, but more often it makes me think of indulgence and superficial appearances. It makes me think of Babel and the elevation of man and a showing of power.
Nature is complex but simple. Pure, authentic, and humble in its magnificence.
I’d rather worship God in a forest than in a cathedral.
And there are people who do just that. They don’t care for the institutions and prefer to fellowship with God in nature and that’s all they need.
Except it can’t be.
I respect that they feel close to God in nature. I do too. But the mountains and the waterfalls and the canyons were not the pinnacle of God’s creation. People were. He created man in his very image. He created us to reflect his character and that requires relationship. We can’t isolate ourselves in nature and reflect love, kindness, peace, goodness, sacrifice, and gentleness if we’re by ourselves.
God is relational and designed his church to be a place where his people come together to worship and love Him and each other. We miss a huge part of who God is and what he wants us to be if our ‘church’ is solitary and disconnected from people.
Climate Change
I can’t think of many other phrases with more baggage, misunderstandings, and polarization than ‘climate change.’
These days, you also can’t often find a book about nature without a commentary on climate change and the protection of our earth.
We get Conor’s opinion pretty clearly: “the lack of trust surrounding climate science has never made sense to me. I can certainly get why people don’t want to think that climate change is happening—it’s terrifying— but to not believe that it actually is?”
What he is perpetuating is a false dichotomy.
This thinking reminds me a lot of debates surrounding Covid-19:
- Fact: Covid-19 is a sickness that is infecting a lot of people.
which led to….
- The loudest and ‘scientific’ voices tell us that to fix the problem we have to all wear masks and quarantine and lock down for x amount of days, etc.
- If we don’t, the effects will be devastating and most people will die. If you don’t agree with and follow our mandates you are anti-science and you don’t care if people die.
- Inciting fear led to the response from people that they wanted.
Similarly with climate change:
- Fact: The global temperature has risen and glaciers are melting.
which has led to…
- The loudest and ‘scientific’ voices tell us that to fix the problem we have to recycle and drive electric cars and stop having cows or burning fossil fuels, etc.
- If we don’t, the effects will be devastating and most people will die. If you don’t agree with and follow our plan you are anti-science and you don’t care if people die.
- Inciting fear is leading to the response from people that they wanted.
In both scenarios it’s hard to find neutral information. Everything you read feels like it’s pushing an agenda of some sort.
Also in both scenarios, much of the ‘science’ that is used is theory, speculation, and conjecture. Were masks really that effective? Are humans really the primary reason for global warming? There’s a lot of evidence that using fossil fuels is better for the poor. Doesn’t that matter?
I am not a climate scientist. I am not an economist. I don’t know much about the environment. And I can’t predict the future. I’m not very qualified to tell you what the deal is with climate change.
BUT. I think Conor’s confusion on why people don’t “trust the science” is unfounded. Scientists’ track record on global crises recently isn’t super great. There’s reason to wonder if what they say is really exactly what is happening and whether their plan is really going to do what they say it will.
There’s reason to doubt whether their models to predict earth years into the future are that accurate. Can we really project the temperature and weather and ocean levels of the earth that far into the future?
It’s not anti-science to not believe every theory and speculation scientists put forth that they can’t prove.
I’ve gone down rabbit holes of learning more about climate change and such and it’s confusing. This is a vast and complicated topic that can’t be satisfactorily discussed in a book review in which it’s not even the primary premise of the book.
So I’ll just leave you with a few links I found to give you things to think about as I myself continue to read and learn more.
Climate Change Facts
Energy Talking Points
< ahref="https://www.prageru.com/video/are-pipelines-safe">Is There Really a Climate Change Emergency (and other videos)
What Questions Should Christians Ask About Global Warming?
Environment Protection and Conservation
Along the same lines as climate change is the conversation about conservation.
How far do we go to protect our environment?
For example, Conor talks about a cavernous pond in the middle of Death Valley that is home to the only pupfish on the planet. When a nearby farmer discovered that area had water he drilled down to build a well to irrigate his fields. This started to drain the the pupfish pond. A lawsuit followed that went all the way to the Supreme Court ending with them siding with the Park Service, creating a precedent, and allowing the Park Service to regulate water and other such things to preserve plants and wildlife on their grounds.
I think in a lot of cases, it’s good to do this. I think it’s important to preserve forests and certain animals. But is keeping the pupfish alive more important than a farmer being able to water his crops that go to feed tons of people?
A ranger said: “We’re not protecting the pupfish because it makes economic sense— it’s because it’s the right thing to do.”
That sounds noble, but should economic sense really play no part in it? Is it really the most right thing to do?
It seems that behind a lot of the campaigns to preserve nature is an attitude that humans are invading earth. We are intruding and destroying. We are the problem.
In a lot of ways we have done things that have harmed the planet and it’s good to correct those. But earth was created for man, not man for earth.
In Genesis the Creation Mandate tells Adam and Eve to rule the earth and subdue it.
I found it fascinating that Conor says this:
“Humans are by far the planet’s most destructive species, but we’re also the only species that has ever worked together to ensure other life forms don’t go extinct… Our ability to see a value in preserving life that extends beyond our immediate self-interest may be what makes us most human.”
First, I agree that humans are the most destructive. We destroy things physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. BUT humans are also the most creative. Why? Because humans were created in the image of God.
As I said before, trees and mountains and canyons and animals were not the pinnacle of God’s creation—mankind was. Nature reflects God’s character but humans reflect God’s image. Conor recognizes the differences in humans compared to animals (because there’s a lot). Humans create and love in a way nothing else on earth can.
Second, “seeing value in preserving life that extends beyond our immediate self-interest may be what makes us most human.” Isn’t it interesting, then, that so many people saying or agreeing with this sentiment do not apply it to human life? Isn’t making abortion illegal seeing value in preserving life beyond immediate self-interest? So isn’t promoting the preservation of human life humanizing and those who seek to terminate that life, then, de-humanizing?
Conor quotes President LBJ saying in regards to national parks, “For once we have spared what is enduring and ennobling from the hungry and hasty and selfish act of destruction.”
Humans do have a tendency to be hungry, hasty, selfish, and destructive. To both nature and humans.
But I think it’s our responsibility to be wise in our preservation to both take care of and steward God’s creation appropriately, but also not to elevate nature and animals above humanity.
Should pupfish go extinct so more humans can eat? That feels simplistic, but these are questions we need to ponder long and hard before we start preventing humans from working the land to help other humans survive.
If the conclusion ever becomes that there are too many humans on earth and that humans are the problem that need to be eliminated, that is a dangerous ideology.
Other Randoms
“Almost every visitor to a national park carries a camera and goes home with an image of the park. And I’ve often wondered why more people don’t come to parks to make a recording of the park. Because, in some respects, sound evokes memory more powerfully than photos do.” — Kurt Fristrup
I think this is really good! A couple years ago we were at Grand Teton National Park and we hiked around Jenny Lake. At one point we found a place to sit right on the edge of the lake where the water lapped onto the shore. It was so peaceful and serene. I took a video for a minute or so and am glad I did.
He’s right that sound evokes memory in powerful ways and we should utilize our ability to record sound to preserve some of these special moments in nature.
Have you ever heard of the Witness Tree Protection Program? This is a really cool program that identifies trees that are so old that they have been witnesses to great moments in history whether on a battlefield or a political event or a death. It’s really cool to think about trees that are centuries old and all the things they would have ‘seen.’ Especially in eras where cameras weren’t invented yet.
After visiting one of the ‘Dark Sky Parks’ Conor talked about how artificial light sources can cause “massive disruptions” to circadian rhythms, nocturnal animals hunting, mating rituals, or animals who navigate by stars.
I’d never thought about the effects of light pollution. Of course I love when I can star gaze without light affecting what I can see. And there are definitely fewer and fewer places to do this. However, I also recognize the necessity for electricity and light in a productive and functioning society. Is there still a way to stop light pollution and protect our night skies without affecting society in a major way?
“Despite their often painful origin stories, our national parks have become our collective sanctuaries, places that welcome us back through their gates with open arms no matter how long we’ve been away.”
“Any sequoia seed has a one in a billion shot at turning into a mature tree.”
“The Park Service manages more than forty-seven hundred caves across the country.”
“The Las Vegas strip is the brightest spot on our entire planet when viewed from space.”
“Tucson is the astronomy capital of the world.”
“Peak baggers are hikers who specifically seek out high points exclusively for their highness, without any regard to any other attribute.”
For my list of fun facts, visit My Original Blog Post.
Recommendation
This was a really fun and interesting read!
I would definitely recommend it, even if you’re not one to spend time in nature. I think it may give you a new perspective and inspire you to visit some of the hidden gems the US has to offer.
If you already love nature, this book will remind you why you love it so much! It will probably also resonate with you in terms of some of the deeper life threads woven into the fabric of creation.
The cover is not super eye-catching but don’t let that fool you!
Pick up the book and then go visit one of the parks!
I would also recommend following the National Park Service on social media. They post some really cool pictures and information about the parks from day to day!
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
This book is part fun-facts-about-National-Parks, part memoir, part conservation commentary.
In 2016, on the 100th Anniversary of the National Park Service, Conor Knighton, CBS correspondent, was inspired to take a year of his life to visit all 59 National Parks.
His fiance had also just broken off their engagement and he needed an escape from his life. Nature was his medicine— just like Teddy Roosevelt who said “he immersed himself in nature to heal a broken heart” after losing both his wife and his mother on the same Valentine’s Day.
Conor moved out, sold his stuff, and began life on the road, criss-crossing the road for 52 weeks, exploring both what the country’s national parks and each area’s Tinder pool had to offer.
He begins at the most eastern point of the US to see the first glimpses of light and he ends on the west coast seeing the last light disappear over the horizon. A full year of beauty and contemplation book-ended perfectly.
I was actually surprised how much I loved this book.
The book cover doesn’t do much for me. Nick Offerman’s book, Where the Deer and the Antelope Play, left me with a bad taste in my mouth about nature books. And I was worried it would become repetitive to talk about each park.
But Conor is a brilliant writer. This book was informative, entertaining, funny, thought-provoking, and inspiring. Plus he’s not afraid of using a pun and I’m a fan of that.
He does not organize his experience alphabetically or chronologically through the parks, but through deeper threads he reflected on throughout his year. For example, some of the chapters are titled: Love; Travelers; Disconnected; God; Sound; Borders, etc.
Many of his reflections were because of his current life crisis with losing the love of his life and not knowing what direction to take his life. But even though he shares his personal journey it was still insightful as a reader and really makes you realize how good nature is for contemplation, disconnecting with the man-made world, and reconnecting with the Creator.
You’ll read this and explore the parks vicariously through him and/or you’ll start planning your next trip. I’ve only been to 11 national parks but you can bet I’ve added a lot more on my list of must-see places.
Thankfully he includes two sections of color photo pages to give us some visuals to the things he encountered, but I wish there were more. I’m sure the way they did it made the most sense in terms of publishing and cost, but I would have liked to see multiple color photo pages for each chapter!
Though the main point of his book was not discuss a Creator or to debate climate change and conservation, they are mentioned and I’ve included a couple sections in my review about them for those who are interested.
Nature and God
You can’t write or read a book about nature without thinking about how the nature got there. Conor has an entire chapter called ‘God’ in which he reflects in awe that it’s hard to see the amazing things in nature and not believe a Creator had a hand in it.
After all, Scripture tells us:
“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.” (Psalm 19:1-2)
He quotes John Muir (John Muir is to nature as Michael Jordan is to basketball) who said that he decided to wander America to “study the inventions of God… and to store my mind with the Lord’s beauty.”
However, though he admits a Creator, based on the rest of the book, Conor definitely believes in evolution and a world that is billions of years old. I personally do not believe this and the book A Biblical Case Against Theistic Evolution provides a pretty compelling case to reject large scale evolution.
One thing Conor talked about that really resonated with me was when he compared nature to cathedrals. The towering trees and filtered light, the majestic beauty of regal mountains. The natural ‘church’ of God— his creation.
He compares that with the intricate cathedrals you’ll find in Europe. He reflects that he looks at the architecture, the gold, the embellishments, the grandiosity of these structures, and just like nature, he thinks about who created them.
A building created for people to worship God that becomes a glorification of man and what people can make instead of the ultimate Creator.
I’ve been to the Vatican in Rome and the Duomo in Florence and can attest to this feeling. Yes, it’s a beautiful and amazing creation. But does it make me think more about God? Not really. Perhaps I praise God for the abilities and gifts he’s given man to create, but more often it makes me think of indulgence and superficial appearances. It makes me think of Babel and the elevation of man and a showing of power.
Nature is complex but simple. Pure, authentic, and humble in its magnificence.
I’d rather worship God in a forest than in a cathedral.
And there are people who do just that. They don’t care for the institutions and prefer to fellowship with God in nature and that’s all they need.
Except it can’t be.
I respect that they feel close to God in nature. I do too. But the mountains and the waterfalls and the canyons were not the pinnacle of God’s creation. People were. He created man in his very image. He created us to reflect his character and that requires relationship. We can’t isolate ourselves in nature and reflect love, kindness, peace, goodness, sacrifice, and gentleness if we’re by ourselves.
God is relational and designed his church to be a place where his people come together to worship and love Him and each other. We miss a huge part of who God is and what he wants us to be if our ‘church’ is solitary and disconnected from people.
Climate Change
I can’t think of many other phrases with more baggage, misunderstandings, and polarization than ‘climate change.’
These days, you also can’t often find a book about nature without a commentary on climate change and the protection of our earth.
We get Conor’s opinion pretty clearly: “the lack of trust surrounding climate science has never made sense to me. I can certainly get why people don’t want to think that climate change is happening—it’s terrifying— but to not believe that it actually is?”
What he is perpetuating is a false dichotomy.
This thinking reminds me a lot of debates surrounding Covid-19:
- Fact: Covid-19 is a sickness that is infecting a lot of people.
which led to….
- The loudest and ‘scientific’ voices tell us that to fix the problem we have to all wear masks and quarantine and lock down for x amount of days, etc.
- If we don’t, the effects will be devastating and most people will die. If you don’t agree with and follow our mandates you are anti-science and you don’t care if people die.
- Inciting fear led to the response from people that they wanted.
Similarly with climate change:
- Fact: The global temperature has risen and glaciers are melting.
which has led to…
- The loudest and ‘scientific’ voices tell us that to fix the problem we have to recycle and drive electric cars and stop having cows or burning fossil fuels, etc.
- If we don’t, the effects will be devastating and most people will die. If you don’t agree with and follow our plan you are anti-science and you don’t care if people die.
- Inciting fear is leading to the response from people that they wanted.
In both scenarios it’s hard to find neutral information. Everything you read feels like it’s pushing an agenda of some sort.
Also in both scenarios, much of the ‘science’ that is used is theory, speculation, and conjecture. Were masks really that effective? Are humans really the primary reason for global warming? There’s a lot of evidence that using fossil fuels is better for the poor. Doesn’t that matter?
I am not a climate scientist. I am not an economist. I don’t know much about the environment. And I can’t predict the future. I’m not very qualified to tell you what the deal is with climate change.
BUT. I think Conor’s confusion on why people don’t “trust the science” is unfounded. Scientists’ track record on global crises recently isn’t super great. There’s reason to wonder if what they say is really exactly what is happening and whether their plan is really going to do what they say it will.
There’s reason to doubt whether their models to predict earth years into the future are that accurate. Can we really project the temperature and weather and ocean levels of the earth that far into the future?
It’s not anti-science to not believe every theory and speculation scientists put forth that they can’t prove.
I’ve gone down rabbit holes of learning more about climate change and such and it’s confusing. This is a vast and complicated topic that can’t be satisfactorily discussed in a book review in which it’s not even the primary premise of the book.
So I’ll just leave you with a few links I found to give you things to think about as I myself continue to read and learn more.
Climate Change Facts
Energy Talking Points
< ahref="https://www.prageru.com/video/are-pipelines-safe">Is There Really a Climate Change Emergency (and other videos)
What Questions Should Christians Ask About Global Warming?
Environment Protection and Conservation
Along the same lines as climate change is the conversation about conservation.
How far do we go to protect our environment?
For example, Conor talks about a cavernous pond in the middle of Death Valley that is home to the only pupfish on the planet. When a nearby farmer discovered that area had water he drilled down to build a well to irrigate his fields. This started to drain the the pupfish pond. A lawsuit followed that went all the way to the Supreme Court ending with them siding with the Park Service, creating a precedent, and allowing the Park Service to regulate water and other such things to preserve plants and wildlife on their grounds.
I think in a lot of cases, it’s good to do this. I think it’s important to preserve forests and certain animals. But is keeping the pupfish alive more important than a farmer being able to water his crops that go to feed tons of people?
A ranger said: “We’re not protecting the pupfish because it makes economic sense— it’s because it’s the right thing to do.”
That sounds noble, but should economic sense really play no part in it? Is it really the most right thing to do?
It seems that behind a lot of the campaigns to preserve nature is an attitude that humans are invading earth. We are intruding and destroying. We are the problem.
In a lot of ways we have done things that have harmed the planet and it’s good to correct those. But earth was created for man, not man for earth.
In Genesis the Creation Mandate tells Adam and Eve to rule the earth and subdue it.
I found it fascinating that Conor says this:
“Humans are by far the planet’s most destructive species, but we’re also the only species that has ever worked together to ensure other life forms don’t go extinct… Our ability to see a value in preserving life that extends beyond our immediate self-interest may be what makes us most human.”
First, I agree that humans are the most destructive. We destroy things physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. BUT humans are also the most creative. Why? Because humans were created in the image of God.
As I said before, trees and mountains and canyons and animals were not the pinnacle of God’s creation—mankind was. Nature reflects God’s character but humans reflect God’s image. Conor recognizes the differences in humans compared to animals (because there’s a lot). Humans create and love in a way nothing else on earth can.
Second, “seeing value in preserving life that extends beyond our immediate self-interest may be what makes us most human.” Isn’t it interesting, then, that so many people saying or agreeing with this sentiment do not apply it to human life? Isn’t making abortion illegal seeing value in preserving life beyond immediate self-interest? So isn’t promoting the preservation of human life humanizing and those who seek to terminate that life, then, de-humanizing?
Conor quotes President LBJ saying in regards to national parks, “For once we have spared what is enduring and ennobling from the hungry and hasty and selfish act of destruction.”
Humans do have a tendency to be hungry, hasty, selfish, and destructive. To both nature and humans.
But I think it’s our responsibility to be wise in our preservation to both take care of and steward God’s creation appropriately, but also not to elevate nature and animals above humanity.
Should pupfish go extinct so more humans can eat? That feels simplistic, but these are questions we need to ponder long and hard before we start preventing humans from working the land to help other humans survive.
If the conclusion ever becomes that there are too many humans on earth and that humans are the problem that need to be eliminated, that is a dangerous ideology.
Other Randoms
“Almost every visitor to a national park carries a camera and goes home with an image of the park. And I’ve often wondered why more people don’t come to parks to make a recording of the park. Because, in some respects, sound evokes memory more powerfully than photos do.” — Kurt Fristrup
I think this is really good! A couple years ago we were at Grand Teton National Park and we hiked around Jenny Lake. At one point we found a place to sit right on the edge of the lake where the water lapped onto the shore. It was so peaceful and serene. I took a video for a minute or so and am glad I did.
He’s right that sound evokes memory in powerful ways and we should utilize our ability to record sound to preserve some of these special moments in nature.
Have you ever heard of the Witness Tree Protection Program? This is a really cool program that identifies trees that are so old that they have been witnesses to great moments in history whether on a battlefield or a political event or a death. It’s really cool to think about trees that are centuries old and all the things they would have ‘seen.’ Especially in eras where cameras weren’t invented yet.
After visiting one of the ‘Dark Sky Parks’ Conor talked about how artificial light sources can cause “massive disruptions” to circadian rhythms, nocturnal animals hunting, mating rituals, or animals who navigate by stars.
I’d never thought about the effects of light pollution. Of course I love when I can star gaze without light affecting what I can see. And there are definitely fewer and fewer places to do this. However, I also recognize the necessity for electricity and light in a productive and functioning society. Is there still a way to stop light pollution and protect our night skies without affecting society in a major way?
“Despite their often painful origin stories, our national parks have become our collective sanctuaries, places that welcome us back through their gates with open arms no matter how long we’ve been away.”
“Any sequoia seed has a one in a billion shot at turning into a mature tree.”
“The Park Service manages more than forty-seven hundred caves across the country.”
“The Las Vegas strip is the brightest spot on our entire planet when viewed from space.”
“Tucson is the astronomy capital of the world.”
“Peak baggers are hikers who specifically seek out high points exclusively for their highness, without any regard to any other attribute.”
For my list of fun facts, visit My Original Blog Post.
Recommendation
This was a really fun and interesting read!
I would definitely recommend it, even if you’re not one to spend time in nature. I think it may give you a new perspective and inspire you to visit some of the hidden gems the US has to offer.
If you already love nature, this book will remind you why you love it so much! It will probably also resonate with you in terms of some of the deeper life threads woven into the fabric of creation.
The cover is not super eye-catching but don’t let that fool you!
Pick up the book and then go visit one of the parks!
I would also recommend following the National Park Service on social media. They post some really cool pictures and information about the parks from day to day!
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“It’s a strange thing when you consider that the dead on this island far outnumber the living.”
This is a very popular book and my first from Lucy Foley. A local librarian recommended it to me for the reading challenge I’m participating in with the library. (I know… how many different reading challenges can I do at one time?!)
Um. I think this was a pretty average book for me. Add to that the profanity and crudeness and it was not my favorite. I had her book The Paris Apartment on my TBR but I’m debating if I read that one or not.
First the premise of this book and then my thoughts on it.
The back of the book reads: “The bride. The plus one. The best man. The wedding planner. The bridesmaid. All have a secret. All have a motive. But only one is a murderer.”
The entire book takes place between two days. The day before the wedding through the wedding night.
A wedding of celebrity proportions taking place on a remote island, accessible only by boat and purported to be haunted.
During the wedding reception and festivities a big storm encompasses the island and presents the perfect opportunity for murder.
What was meant to be a happy celebration is surrounded by grudges, fear, shame, rage, and reputations to keep intact.
Who was murdered? And who was the murderer?
Foley gives us our list of suspects:
- Jules, the bride: “I have to keep a handle on my temper this weekend. Mine has been known to get the better of me. I’m not proud of the fact, but I have never found myself able to completely control it, though I’m getting better.”
- Hannah, the plus-one: “I’m shocked by how much this place has already made me forget myself.”
- Johnno, the best man: “Being back together with that group of blokes again… We were all bonded by that place. When we get together there’s this kind of pack mentality. We get carried away.”
- Aoife, the wedding planner: “A wedding day is a neat little parcel of time in which I can create something whole and perfect to be cherished for a lifetime, a pearl from a broken necklace.”
- Olivia, the bridesmaid: “I look out through the window at the boats approaching: closer now. It feels like they are bringing something bad with them to the island. But that’s silly. Because it’s here already, isn’t it? It’s me. I’m the bad thing. What I’ve done.”
I usually enjoy a whodunnit/locked room mystery. But this wasn’t quite that.
For one, we don’t even know who was murdered until the book was almost over. There was no murder victim and scene to consider as we try to figure out who murdered them. How are we to know what clues we find?
There really were no clues. All the suspects have motive, secrets, and opportunity so this book is more of a ‘you have to read to the end to know so let me jerk you back and forth as I throw suspicions at you’ read.
As many reviewers have mentioned, it’s a slow start. We go back and forth from the persepective of each suspect throughout the day gathering information about their background, their mental state, and their feelings about the day.
The last 30% or so picks up more pace and the sections chop down to 1-2 pages each which creates more suspense. But it’s quite a bit into the story. Not a fan of such a late start.
The characters. Oof. None of them are very likable. Possibly Hannah, but I don’t know if that’s just because I can relate to the whole, I’m a mother of kids now and I don’t have as much fun as I remember having.
But really the characters all kind of suck.
The book teases that it’s a guest list people would kill to be on. But man, I basically got to go to the wedding and I really would have rather been anywhere else. I can’t imagine being around those people!
Take me off the guest list please!
I mentioned before the profanity and crudeness. Let’s add in drugs and alcohol. It seemed like what created the mystery of this book, besides everyone having motive, was that everyone was drinking the whole time. Of course, when alcohol is involved, anyone could do anything! Mystery!
Not my kind of mystery.
Do we even really know the characters? Or just the alcohol-infused version of themselves?
Why is drunkenness so acceptable?
I know this is a book. But in real life, drunkenness is acceptable. Anticipated. Celebrated.
But what’s the point? Fiction and non-fiction alike, what follows excessive drinking is usually regret, pain, destruction- physical, emotional, sexual, mental.
Sure, we have a murder mystery when any drunken person could get ‘carried away’ amidst a bunch of other reckless partyers who aren’t paying attention to anything. But if we take away the drugs and alcohol… do we still have a story?
When it comes down to it, this is not a book for me.
If you don’t care about profanity and recklessness and a chance to solve the mystery yourself (yeah, you could guess and be right, but that’s all it would be, a lucky guess) then you might enjoy it. Lots of other people did.
But if your threshold for f-words is low and you want likeable characters and a chance to prove to yourself how good of a detective you are, maybe pass on this one.
Sidenote: Trigger warning for self-harm and suicide.
This is a very popular book and my first from Lucy Foley. A local librarian recommended it to me for the reading challenge I’m participating in with the library. (I know… how many different reading challenges can I do at one time?!)
Um. I think this was a pretty average book for me. Add to that the profanity and crudeness and it was not my favorite. I had her book The Paris Apartment on my TBR but I’m debating if I read that one or not.
First the premise of this book and then my thoughts on it.
The back of the book reads: “The bride. The plus one. The best man. The wedding planner. The bridesmaid. All have a secret. All have a motive. But only one is a murderer.”
The entire book takes place between two days. The day before the wedding through the wedding night.
A wedding of celebrity proportions taking place on a remote island, accessible only by boat and purported to be haunted.
During the wedding reception and festivities a big storm encompasses the island and presents the perfect opportunity for murder.
What was meant to be a happy celebration is surrounded by grudges, fear, shame, rage, and reputations to keep intact.
Who was murdered? And who was the murderer?
Foley gives us our list of suspects:
- Jules, the bride: “I have to keep a handle on my temper this weekend. Mine has been known to get the better of me. I’m not proud of the fact, but I have never found myself able to completely control it, though I’m getting better.”
- Hannah, the plus-one: “I’m shocked by how much this place has already made me forget myself.”
- Johnno, the best man: “Being back together with that group of blokes again… We were all bonded by that place. When we get together there’s this kind of pack mentality. We get carried away.”
- Aoife, the wedding planner: “A wedding day is a neat little parcel of time in which I can create something whole and perfect to be cherished for a lifetime, a pearl from a broken necklace.”
- Olivia, the bridesmaid: “I look out through the window at the boats approaching: closer now. It feels like they are bringing something bad with them to the island. But that’s silly. Because it’s here already, isn’t it? It’s me. I’m the bad thing. What I’ve done.”
I usually enjoy a whodunnit/locked room mystery. But this wasn’t quite that.
For one, we don’t even know who was murdered until the book was almost over. There was no murder victim and scene to consider as we try to figure out who murdered them. How are we to know what clues we find?
There really were no clues. All the suspects have motive, secrets, and opportunity so this book is more of a ‘you have to read to the end to know so let me jerk you back and forth as I throw suspicions at you’ read.
As many reviewers have mentioned, it’s a slow start. We go back and forth from the persepective of each suspect throughout the day gathering information about their background, their mental state, and their feelings about the day.
The last 30% or so picks up more pace and the sections chop down to 1-2 pages each which creates more suspense. But it’s quite a bit into the story. Not a fan of such a late start.
The characters. Oof. None of them are very likable. Possibly Hannah, but I don’t know if that’s just because I can relate to the whole, I’m a mother of kids now and I don’t have as much fun as I remember having.
But really the characters all kind of suck.
The book teases that it’s a guest list people would kill to be on. But man, I basically got to go to the wedding and I really would have rather been anywhere else. I can’t imagine being around those people!
Take me off the guest list please!
I mentioned before the profanity and crudeness. Let’s add in drugs and alcohol. It seemed like what created the mystery of this book, besides everyone having motive, was that everyone was drinking the whole time. Of course, when alcohol is involved, anyone could do anything! Mystery!
Not my kind of mystery.
Do we even really know the characters? Or just the alcohol-infused version of themselves?
Why is drunkenness so acceptable?
I know this is a book. But in real life, drunkenness is acceptable. Anticipated. Celebrated.
But what’s the point? Fiction and non-fiction alike, what follows excessive drinking is usually regret, pain, destruction- physical, emotional, sexual, mental.
Sure, we have a murder mystery when any drunken person could get ‘carried away’ amidst a bunch of other reckless partyers who aren’t paying attention to anything. But if we take away the drugs and alcohol… do we still have a story?
When it comes down to it, this is not a book for me.
If you don’t care about profanity and recklessness and a chance to solve the mystery yourself (yeah, you could guess and be right, but that’s all it would be, a lucky guess) then you might enjoy it. Lots of other people did.
But if your threshold for f-words is low and you want likeable characters and a chance to prove to yourself how good of a detective you are, maybe pass on this one.
Sidenote: Trigger warning for self-harm and suicide.
“There is always fear. Fear of the money running out again. Of hunger. Of failure. Of wanting anything badly enough that it will destroy me when I can’t have it. Of loving someone I can’t hold on to, of watching my sister slip through my fingers like sand. Of watching something break that I don’t know how to fix.”
I mean… was I ever NOT going to read a book called ‘Book Lovers’?
You know how the Hallmark movies are typically just versions of: ‘Big-city-career-driven-person visits small town for some reason, falls in love with a simple-life-local, breaks up with city-lover to move to said small town and find the more important things in life.’ ?
Well this is about the ‘city-lover’ who was broken up with.
Nora.
She’s been the one left behind in New York for the small town magic. Four times.
Nora has accepted that she is the ice-queen with no feelings, destined to be alone, but doesn’t mind because she only cares to be successful in her career (in books) and be there for her younger sister.
What I love most about this rom-com is that it’s more than just a funny love story. It’s also a story of the friendship of sisters and the process of grief.
And even though I can’t really understand people who love to live in New York City and view the millions of other people as family, I can respect that Emily Henry allowed her character to not follow the norm and let the busy-ness and crowdedness of the city to be a good thing.
Plot Summary
Nora is a literary agent, the liaison between authors and editors.
Her and her sister’s father left them when they were young. Their mom died when her sister, Libby, was in high school. So Nora has been Libby’s primary ‘caretaker,’ vowing to do whatever she could to protect and help Libby, to give Libby the life their mother had started to create for them in New York.
“I put my career first. Not because I have no life, but because I can’t bear to let the one Mom wanted for us to slip away. Because I need to know we’ll be okay no matter what, because I want to carve out a piece of the city and its magic, just for us. But carving turns you into a knife. Cold, hard, sharp, at least on the outside.”
As adults their sister bond has weakened so Nora agrees to take a few weeks off and go on a trip Libby planned for them to small town Sunshine Falls, NC— the inspiration for her latest client’s successful book.
[FYI- Sunshine Falls, NC is not a real place but was based on several small mountain towns.]
“Why Sunshine Falls? It just seemed like the kind of place that might look one way on the outside, and be something totally different once you got to know it. Like if you had the patience to take the time to understand it, it might be something beautiful.”
The catch? Libby has a bucket list for the trip. And it looks a lot like a Hallmark movie: wear flannel, sleep under the stars, ride a horse, get a makeover, go on dates with the locals, save a small business, etc.
This would normally be fine. She’ll do anything for Libby.
But lo and behold, she runs into Charlie Lastra— an editor she had a less than ideal experience with a couple years ago.
So now we have an enemies-to-lovers scenario. Their back and forth passive-aggressive banter quickly turns into flirting and something more. They have to figure out if what they feel is merely the small town magic or if they can survive in the city.
Things I Liked
The humor. At this point I have read one other Emily Henry book— People We Meet on Vacation. She has a great sense of humor and a knack for wit and entertaining dialogue.
Even her descriptions are funny and creative. Like:
“‘This book feels like someone watched that Sarah McLachlan commercial for animal cruelty prevention and thought, But what if all the puppies died on camera?’”
“This place looks like a Cracker Barrel had a baby with a honkytonk, and now that baby is a teenager who doesn’t shower enough and chews on his sweatshirt sleeves.”
I really liked the focus on other relationships besides just the love story. Nora is still dealing with her grief from losing her mom and realizing the pressure she’s put on herself to take care of Libby.
Something her mom always said to them when they felt sad was, ‘Let it out, sweet girl.’ And for some reason that phrase ‘sweet girl’ pulls at my heartstrings. I like when female characters have close relationships with their moms.
Nora also wasn’t going to put her own love life above helping her sister. I liked that we see growth in multiple types of relationships throughout the book.
I liked getting to see a little piece of the editing process a book goes through before being published. Although, now I’m wondering how much of my favorite books were actually characters, plots, or words that were written by an editor not the author.
And if I end up writing my own book like I want to, can I handle a process like that?
I wish it was possible to shadow an editor at a publishing company and see more about how these things work!
Lastly, there were some references that were fun:
- There was a salon called ‘Curl Up N Dye’ which is funny because literally a week ago I was driving through a small town in Iowa with a salon with that exact name and I couldn’t decide if that was a smart name or not!
- She makes a brief reference to Countess Bathory. She was rumored to have been a murderer of young girls back in the late 1500s. If this intrigues you, Tosca Lee wrote a really good duology incorporating that legend.
- There is a cologne called ‘Books’ that is scented like cedar wood and amber and I am now looking for a candle with that scent combo because I think I’ll really like it.
Things I Didn’t Like
Her name is Nora. Like a million other books. Let’s try something different.
The sexual content.
I know, it’s a romance novel, what do I expect? Well I’m one of the few who don’t like to read the details about people having sex or almost sex.
To Henry’s credit, there was not as much as Love, Hypothetically, but there were still a few scenes I could have done without.
If you wish to avoid them, just skip pages 170-174, 244-247, and 302-307. You won’t miss anything important and you’ll still be able to see the romance and tension between Nora and Charlie.
That Libby calls Nora ‘sissy.’ Do adults use this term? I don’t even have my daughters call each other that, but it just seems childish for adults. I can’t really picture this nickname being natural as an adult. But that could just be me.
Charlie says he doesn’t like to read the last page of a book:
“There are full series I love whose last chapter I’ve never read. I hate the feeling of something ending.”
What?! That’s a romantic notion but seriously? What book lover could really not finish a book they love? They could really live like that?
There is a bit of a story-within-a-story in this book because Charlie and Nora are co-editing a book and so we get bits and pieces of the characters and plots of the book. The main character of that book is named Nadine Winters and based on Nora.
I think this was supposed to be a profound addition and a subtle way to understand the self-realization that Nora goes through, but it didn’t really do much for me. I don’t think I really followed everything and I don’t think it added that much to the story.
Recommendation
I think this book earned its win as Best Romance. I think there were a lot of layers to it that added some depth to the plot.
It was definitely funny and fun to read.
I think the main thing that keeps this from being a five star book for me is just the swearing and sexual content.
I feel like most of the f-words occurred in the last third of the book. And the sexual content can largely/easily be avoided by skipping the pages I listed above.
I’m realizing it’s hard for me to pick and choose romance books and recommend them. There’s a wide spectrum of what kind of content is in them.
It seems these days there aren’t many romance novels without language and sexual content unless they are Amish or Christian novels that don’t stand out to me.
This is not my go-to genre but I’m drawn to rom coms— I love to laugh and enjoy good wit and humor.
I’m still trying to figure out how to recommend these books because others have different thresholds for this content as well.
So I’ll just say this:
If you have the self-control to skip some pages and can handle some language, I would definitely recommend this book!
If you prefer to only read clean books with no f-words, better skip this one.
[Content Advisory: a few handfuls of f- and s-words; somewhat graphic sexual content in pages 170-174, 244-247, and 302-307]
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
I mean… was I ever NOT going to read a book called ‘Book Lovers’?
You know how the Hallmark movies are typically just versions of: ‘Big-city-career-driven-person visits small town for some reason, falls in love with a simple-life-local, breaks up with city-lover to move to said small town and find the more important things in life.’ ?
Well this is about the ‘city-lover’ who was broken up with.
Nora.
She’s been the one left behind in New York for the small town magic. Four times.
Nora has accepted that she is the ice-queen with no feelings, destined to be alone, but doesn’t mind because she only cares to be successful in her career (in books) and be there for her younger sister.
What I love most about this rom-com is that it’s more than just a funny love story. It’s also a story of the friendship of sisters and the process of grief.
And even though I can’t really understand people who love to live in New York City and view the millions of other people as family, I can respect that Emily Henry allowed her character to not follow the norm and let the busy-ness and crowdedness of the city to be a good thing.
Plot Summary
Nora is a literary agent, the liaison between authors and editors.
Her and her sister’s father left them when they were young. Their mom died when her sister, Libby, was in high school. So Nora has been Libby’s primary ‘caretaker,’ vowing to do whatever she could to protect and help Libby, to give Libby the life their mother had started to create for them in New York.
“I put my career first. Not because I have no life, but because I can’t bear to let the one Mom wanted for us to slip away. Because I need to know we’ll be okay no matter what, because I want to carve out a piece of the city and its magic, just for us. But carving turns you into a knife. Cold, hard, sharp, at least on the outside.”
As adults their sister bond has weakened so Nora agrees to take a few weeks off and go on a trip Libby planned for them to small town Sunshine Falls, NC— the inspiration for her latest client’s successful book.
[FYI- Sunshine Falls, NC is not a real place but was based on several small mountain towns.]
“Why Sunshine Falls? It just seemed like the kind of place that might look one way on the outside, and be something totally different once you got to know it. Like if you had the patience to take the time to understand it, it might be something beautiful.”
The catch? Libby has a bucket list for the trip. And it looks a lot like a Hallmark movie: wear flannel, sleep under the stars, ride a horse, get a makeover, go on dates with the locals, save a small business, etc.
This would normally be fine. She’ll do anything for Libby.
But lo and behold, she runs into Charlie Lastra— an editor she had a less than ideal experience with a couple years ago.
So now we have an enemies-to-lovers scenario. Their back and forth passive-aggressive banter quickly turns into flirting and something more. They have to figure out if what they feel is merely the small town magic or if they can survive in the city.
Things I Liked
The humor. At this point I have read one other Emily Henry book— People We Meet on Vacation. She has a great sense of humor and a knack for wit and entertaining dialogue.
Even her descriptions are funny and creative. Like:
“‘This book feels like someone watched that Sarah McLachlan commercial for animal cruelty prevention and thought, But what if all the puppies died on camera?’”
“This place looks like a Cracker Barrel had a baby with a honkytonk, and now that baby is a teenager who doesn’t shower enough and chews on his sweatshirt sleeves.”
I really liked the focus on other relationships besides just the love story. Nora is still dealing with her grief from losing her mom and realizing the pressure she’s put on herself to take care of Libby.
Something her mom always said to them when they felt sad was, ‘Let it out, sweet girl.’ And for some reason that phrase ‘sweet girl’ pulls at my heartstrings. I like when female characters have close relationships with their moms.
Nora also wasn’t going to put her own love life above helping her sister. I liked that we see growth in multiple types of relationships throughout the book.
I liked getting to see a little piece of the editing process a book goes through before being published. Although, now I’m wondering how much of my favorite books were actually characters, plots, or words that were written by an editor not the author.
And if I end up writing my own book like I want to, can I handle a process like that?
I wish it was possible to shadow an editor at a publishing company and see more about how these things work!
Lastly, there were some references that were fun:
- There was a salon called ‘Curl Up N Dye’ which is funny because literally a week ago I was driving through a small town in Iowa with a salon with that exact name and I couldn’t decide if that was a smart name or not!
- She makes a brief reference to Countess Bathory. She was rumored to have been a murderer of young girls back in the late 1500s. If this intrigues you, Tosca Lee wrote a really good duology incorporating that legend.
- There is a cologne called ‘Books’ that is scented like cedar wood and amber and I am now looking for a candle with that scent combo because I think I’ll really like it.
Things I Didn’t Like
Her name is Nora. Like a million other books. Let’s try something different.
The sexual content.
I know, it’s a romance novel, what do I expect? Well I’m one of the few who don’t like to read the details about people having sex or almost sex.
To Henry’s credit, there was not as much as Love, Hypothetically, but there were still a few scenes I could have done without.
If you wish to avoid them, just skip pages 170-174, 244-247, and 302-307. You won’t miss anything important and you’ll still be able to see the romance and tension between Nora and Charlie.
That Libby calls Nora ‘sissy.’ Do adults use this term? I don’t even have my daughters call each other that, but it just seems childish for adults. I can’t really picture this nickname being natural as an adult. But that could just be me.
Charlie says he doesn’t like to read the last page of a book:
“There are full series I love whose last chapter I’ve never read. I hate the feeling of something ending.”
What?! That’s a romantic notion but seriously? What book lover could really not finish a book they love? They could really live like that?
There is a bit of a story-within-a-story in this book because Charlie and Nora are co-editing a book and so we get bits and pieces of the characters and plots of the book. The main character of that book is named Nadine Winters and based on Nora.
I think this was supposed to be a profound addition and a subtle way to understand the self-realization that Nora goes through, but it didn’t really do much for me. I don’t think I really followed everything and I don’t think it added that much to the story.
Recommendation
I think this book earned its win as Best Romance. I think there were a lot of layers to it that added some depth to the plot.
It was definitely funny and fun to read.
I think the main thing that keeps this from being a five star book for me is just the swearing and sexual content.
I feel like most of the f-words occurred in the last third of the book. And the sexual content can largely/easily be avoided by skipping the pages I listed above.
I’m realizing it’s hard for me to pick and choose romance books and recommend them. There’s a wide spectrum of what kind of content is in them.
It seems these days there aren’t many romance novels without language and sexual content unless they are Amish or Christian novels that don’t stand out to me.
This is not my go-to genre but I’m drawn to rom coms— I love to laugh and enjoy good wit and humor.
I’m still trying to figure out how to recommend these books because others have different thresholds for this content as well.
So I’ll just say this:
If you have the self-control to skip some pages and can handle some language, I would definitely recommend this book!
If you prefer to only read clean books with no f-words, better skip this one.
[Content Advisory: a few handfuls of f- and s-words; somewhat graphic sexual content in pages 170-174, 244-247, and 302-307]
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“Ruth answers the question ‘Can I trust and love the God who has dealt me this painful hand in life?’”
Based on the primary title of this book I thought it would be a more political book or one with a lot of statistics or modern context. I suppose Piper’s book Bloodlines is for that.
I was pleasantly surprised that I was wrong about this book.
The story of Ruth has a special place in my heart and it was really insightful to read about all the things I missed about a story I loved!
There are many things woven into the threads of this four chapter book of the Bible:
Ruth is…
“a love story”
"a portrait of manhood and womanhood”
”about racial and ethnic diversity and harmony”
”about how God’s purposes are good”
”meant to release radical, risk-taking love”
”a showing of how all of history, even its darkest hours, serves to magnify the glory of God’s grace”
It’s possible that much of this book was taken from a sermon series Piper did on Ruth and I wouldn’t be surprised. It read like a sermon— and by that I mean it was expositional, conversational, applicable teaching.
The book is comprised of four chapters, like Ruth, and in each one he dissects the material and pulls out the threads listed above.
One of the most obvious themes of the book of Ruth is the story of Naomi who loses much and falls into bitterness but who is revived by God’s providence.
“The book of Ruth reveals the hidden hand of God in the bitter experiences of his people. The point of this book is not just that God is preparing the way for the coming of the King of Glory, but that he is doing it in such a way that all of us should learn that the worst of times are not wasted. They are not wasted globally, historically, or personally.”
I have had a ‘Naomi’ time in my life. I had miscarried my first pregnancy and had a hard time getting pregnant. I believed God was withholding children from me and I became bitter. After a long faith journey, God showed his providence in giving us four children over the next several years.
But my first child came while I was still bitter. I had been reading Ruth at the time. I knew that God was faithful to me that whole time even while I was in despair and blaming him.
I named my first daughter with the middle name of Ruth. It will always be my reminder that God does not waste our pain and I can trust him with my life even times of pain and grief.
That was six years ago. Reading this book now that I have a full home was a humbling experience and one that brings me to worship God in a new way. It reminds me that in any painful or dark day, I cannot stop looking for the light peaking through.
Piper says, “Seeing is a precious gift. And bitterness is a powerful blindness.”
I know this from experience.
While the entire book unfolds a picture of God’s sovereignty, we see the other two words of this book’s title in specific chapters.
Chapter 3 shows us the purity of Boaz and Ruth’s love. Piper gives more background on the confusing scene on the threshing floor that is often misconstrued.
“Ruth and Boaz were strong. They were not enslaved to their desires. Their desires were great and greatly governed by God-given commitments. They sent their culturally appropriate and provocative signals.”
Chapter 4 shows us God’s love and plan for diversity.
“All the calamities of this story seem to be designed to get a Moabitess into the genealogy of Jesus. Ruth is one of the four women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:5)”
The other three women include Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheeba (Uriah’s wife). This tells us that there is room for all kinds of people in the family of God. There is diversity and there is forgiveness. God loves all of his children and invites us into his story of redemption and glory.
One other thing that Piper pulls out of the story that really resonated with me was this:
“Serving a widowed mother-in-law, gleaning in a field, falling in love, having a baby— for the Christian these things are all connected to eternity. They are part of something so much bigger than they seem.”
“Everything we do in obedience to God, no matter how small, is significant.”
This is something I’ve thought about a lot in the last couple years as a stay-at-home mom. I often wonder what I’m doing for God’s kingdom. What impact could I be making? Is there something more for me than this?
But look at Ruth. She served, she gathered food for her family, she fell in love, she had a baby. And the eternal trajectory of her life and child led to the very birth of Christ. We cannot see how God is going to use our small acts but we can be confident that he will.
As I said in my blog post, Faithful with Little, about this topic: “No task is small and meaningless in the hands of a big and sovereign and faithful God.”
Other Quotes
“Grace is not intended to replace lowliness with pride. It’s intended to replace sorrow with joy.”
“One of the lessons I have learned from this chapter is that hope helps us dream. Hope helps us think up ways to do good. Hope helps us pursue our ventures with virtue and integrity. It’s hopelessness that makes people think they have to lie and steal and seize illicit pleasures for the moment. But hope, based on the confidence that a sovereign God is for us, gives us a thrilling impulse that I call strategic righteousness.”
“One of the reasons we must help each other “hope in God” (Ps 42:5) is that only hopeful people, hopeful families, and hopeful churches plan and strategize.”
“God wants us to know that when we follow him, our lives always mean more than we think they do… For the Christian there is always a connection between the ordinary events of life and the stupendous work of God in history.”
Recommendation
I highly recommend this book. No, it’s not a full modern commentary on the topics of sex and race that fill our Facebook feeds, but it does give us foundational truths about both.
The story of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz shows us God’s love and providence, his love and plan for diversity, and his design for sex and purity.
The book of Ruth is short, and so is Piper’s book, but what you’ll read in its pages has depth eternal and I bet you’ll learn something you didn’t know before!
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
Based on the primary title of this book I thought it would be a more political book or one with a lot of statistics or modern context. I suppose Piper’s book Bloodlines is for that.
I was pleasantly surprised that I was wrong about this book.
The story of Ruth has a special place in my heart and it was really insightful to read about all the things I missed about a story I loved!
There are many things woven into the threads of this four chapter book of the Bible:
Ruth is…
“a love story”
"a portrait of manhood and womanhood”
”about racial and ethnic diversity and harmony”
”about how God’s purposes are good”
”meant to release radical, risk-taking love”
”a showing of how all of history, even its darkest hours, serves to magnify the glory of God’s grace”
It’s possible that much of this book was taken from a sermon series Piper did on Ruth and I wouldn’t be surprised. It read like a sermon— and by that I mean it was expositional, conversational, applicable teaching.
The book is comprised of four chapters, like Ruth, and in each one he dissects the material and pulls out the threads listed above.
One of the most obvious themes of the book of Ruth is the story of Naomi who loses much and falls into bitterness but who is revived by God’s providence.
“The book of Ruth reveals the hidden hand of God in the bitter experiences of his people. The point of this book is not just that God is preparing the way for the coming of the King of Glory, but that he is doing it in such a way that all of us should learn that the worst of times are not wasted. They are not wasted globally, historically, or personally.”
I have had a ‘Naomi’ time in my life. I had miscarried my first pregnancy and had a hard time getting pregnant. I believed God was withholding children from me and I became bitter. After a long faith journey, God showed his providence in giving us four children over the next several years.
But my first child came while I was still bitter. I had been reading Ruth at the time. I knew that God was faithful to me that whole time even while I was in despair and blaming him.
I named my first daughter with the middle name of Ruth. It will always be my reminder that God does not waste our pain and I can trust him with my life even times of pain and grief.
That was six years ago. Reading this book now that I have a full home was a humbling experience and one that brings me to worship God in a new way. It reminds me that in any painful or dark day, I cannot stop looking for the light peaking through.
Piper says, “Seeing is a precious gift. And bitterness is a powerful blindness.”
I know this from experience.
While the entire book unfolds a picture of God’s sovereignty, we see the other two words of this book’s title in specific chapters.
Chapter 3 shows us the purity of Boaz and Ruth’s love. Piper gives more background on the confusing scene on the threshing floor that is often misconstrued.
“Ruth and Boaz were strong. They were not enslaved to their desires. Their desires were great and greatly governed by God-given commitments. They sent their culturally appropriate and provocative signals.”
Chapter 4 shows us God’s love and plan for diversity.
“All the calamities of this story seem to be designed to get a Moabitess into the genealogy of Jesus. Ruth is one of the four women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:5)”
The other three women include Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheeba (Uriah’s wife). This tells us that there is room for all kinds of people in the family of God. There is diversity and there is forgiveness. God loves all of his children and invites us into his story of redemption and glory.
One other thing that Piper pulls out of the story that really resonated with me was this:
“Serving a widowed mother-in-law, gleaning in a field, falling in love, having a baby— for the Christian these things are all connected to eternity. They are part of something so much bigger than they seem.”
“Everything we do in obedience to God, no matter how small, is significant.”
This is something I’ve thought about a lot in the last couple years as a stay-at-home mom. I often wonder what I’m doing for God’s kingdom. What impact could I be making? Is there something more for me than this?
But look at Ruth. She served, she gathered food for her family, she fell in love, she had a baby. And the eternal trajectory of her life and child led to the very birth of Christ. We cannot see how God is going to use our small acts but we can be confident that he will.
As I said in my blog post, Faithful with Little, about this topic: “No task is small and meaningless in the hands of a big and sovereign and faithful God.”
Other Quotes
“Grace is not intended to replace lowliness with pride. It’s intended to replace sorrow with joy.”
“One of the lessons I have learned from this chapter is that hope helps us dream. Hope helps us think up ways to do good. Hope helps us pursue our ventures with virtue and integrity. It’s hopelessness that makes people think they have to lie and steal and seize illicit pleasures for the moment. But hope, based on the confidence that a sovereign God is for us, gives us a thrilling impulse that I call strategic righteousness.”
“One of the reasons we must help each other “hope in God” (Ps 42:5) is that only hopeful people, hopeful families, and hopeful churches plan and strategize.”
“God wants us to know that when we follow him, our lives always mean more than we think they do… For the Christian there is always a connection between the ordinary events of life and the stupendous work of God in history.”
Recommendation
I highly recommend this book. No, it’s not a full modern commentary on the topics of sex and race that fill our Facebook feeds, but it does give us foundational truths about both.
The story of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz shows us God’s love and providence, his love and plan for diversity, and his design for sex and purity.
The book of Ruth is short, and so is Piper’s book, but what you’ll read in its pages has depth eternal and I bet you’ll learn something you didn’t know before!
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“Heaven touches down on planet earth through our gathered churches. And when this happens, you offer the citizens of your nation the hope of a better nation, the residents of your city the hope of a better and lasting city.”
Covid-19 caused lockdowns and prevented churches from meeting in person. Churches adapted by moving to livestream and online services. But the year of 2020 brought divisions over many things— masks and vaccines, race protests, and the election and churches became less unified.
When doors re-opened, many people decided not to go back to church. What was the point? They disagreed with so many of the people and they could just find church online in the comfort of their home.
Hansen and Leeman have written this book to show why gathering as a church— the body of Christ— is so important. They come at it not from a utopian view, but with first-hand knowledge of the struggles churches have had and a plea for us to endure with each other even when it gets messy.
But first…. what is church?
The book is formatted around the answer to this question. Each chapter fleshes out one phrase of what it means to be a church:
“A group of Christians [Who can belong to the church?]
Who assemble as an earthly embassy of Christ’s heavenly kingdom [Do we really need to gather?]
To proclaim the good news and commands of Christ the King [Why are preaching and teaching central?]
To affirm one another as his citizens through the ordinances [Is joining actually necessary?]
And to display God’s own holiness and love [Is church discipline really loving?]
Through a unified and diverse people [How do I love members who are different?]
In all the world [How do we love outsiders?]
Following the teaching and example of elders” [Who leads?]
When I read this book I also had the corresponding study guide. Study guides are often repetitive and just busy work, but I thought this study guide book was really good. There are about 10 pages of questions for each chapter with space to write answers.
The questions are formed around quotes from the chapter with additional Bible passages not found in the book.
This book can be read alone (as I did) but I think it’s meant to be read in a group. The church learning together how to be a church. If you do read it in a group, I think you’ll want to have the study guide workbook as well. The questions are discussion-worthy and helpful in reflecting on the material. (I’ve included some pictures in my original post)
Hansen and Leeman ask us to ‘rediscover church.’ To return to a place that may have hurt you or frustrated you. To remember why we meet together. To reflect on how we view church and if it fits with what God has called us to in Scripture.
“You have many reasons not to rediscover church and one reason why you must: because through these people you don’t much like, God wants to show his love to you. It’s the only kind of love that can draw us out of ourselves and into a fellowship that transcends the forces tearing apart our sick world. It’s the only essential way for us to find healing together…
…Beyond all that, your church is where Christ says he’s present in a unique way.”
I was just reading a book about nature where the author commented on how nature is a cathedral. Eluding to the idea that we don’t need a building full of hypocrites. We can be closer to our Creator by spending time with him alone in nature.
Part of this is true. It’s great when we can spend time alone with God in his creation. But this can’t be a replacement for church.
God, as the Trinity, is in constant relationship. He created us to be in relationship with others. How can we love and serve and exhibit all the other fruit of the Spirit if we have removed ourselves from the gathering of God’s people?
It’s more convenient to ‘do church’ on our own time in our own way. We all have preferences and ideas of what church should look like or feel like. But then we creep into the consumer-mentality that church is just about what we can get out of it.
“What goes missing when your ‘church’ experience is nothing more than a weekly livestream? For starters, you think less about your fellow members. They don’t come to mind. You don’t bump into them and have the quick conversations that lead to longer conversations over dinner. Beyond that, you remove yourself from the path of encouragement, accountability, and love.”
“Gathering with the church can be inconvenient, but so is love. Relationships are messy, but so is love. Vulnerable conversations are scary, but so is love.”
This was one of the points that resonated the most with me. How can we create unity if we never see each other? How can we build trust if we’re never together? How can we serve the world in the most effective way if we’re isolated, alone, or indifferent?
“A church must build relationships of depth and endurance. It’s impossible to teach everything Jesus commanded to people you barely know and hardly see.”
As much as I agree with all of these things, I do think that there are some benefits to livestreams that neither author touched on. I do think pastors should encourage their congregation members away from relying on that and to invest in the church in-person.
But the livestream and online service is a way to include church members when they can’t physically be there for whatever reason. It also may make it easier for newcomers to come to church for the first time if they can watch a service ahead of time and know what to expect. Video services can reach people in other countries who may not have access to a church.
Virtual church can definitely become an unhealthy crutch or avoidance mechanism, but I’m not sure I’m ready to say nix it all.
One thing this book helped me understand better was the role of deacons. I was never part of a church where there were established roles called deacons. I think deacon and elder is often confused and can cause problems when women become involved in certain ministerial positions because congregation members don’t understand the particular office of leadership.
I didn’t realize that the word ‘deacon’ means to serve. So, in Scripture, when Jesus says that he came to serve and not be served, the word there is deacon. It’s a verb not a noun. Jesus came to deacon.
“If every Christian is called to serve and work to maintain the unity of the church, why formally recognize an office of deacon? Because it reminds the church how close such service is to the heart of the gospel and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Mk 10:45)
While I’m not sure if I would want to start establishing deacons called deacons, this book helped me know how to think of those roles in relation to elders.
A couple things I wondered about with this book were just what they would have be requirements for church membership. I’m not entirely sure what they think because they don’t mandate anything in their book, but it would seem they require church members to have been baptized. And they require the Lord’s Supper to only be for church members.
Granted, though baptism is not what saves you, if someone wasn’t baptized, I would probably wonder why. And maybe they just mean membership in the Church, big C, when it comes to the Lord’s Table. I don’t know.
I also saw a reviewer criticizing the book, not because of the content, but because of the authors. He felt the way the actually handled things during the pandemic contradicted what they put forth in this book.
I think I probably disagree with Hansen and Leeman on many things involving the pandemic, but does that mean we ignore their book? I don’t think so. I think what they’ve written here is truth. The things we disagree on about Covid are not major issues in matters of theology or salvation.
As this book itself states, we can still be part of God’s family with people we disagree with in matters like the pandemic.
I don’t think I’m going to hold their actions in 2020 in regards to how their church operated or how they viewed churches who operated differently than them against them. The year 2020 was unprecedented, no one really knew what was going on and what future months would actually look like. Church leaders were doing the best they could with the information they had in the places they were. Mistakes were made all over the place. This book has come out in the wake of that and to me that doesn’t show hypocrisy, it shows growth.
As I mentioned before, I think Hansen and Leeman are probably more against online services than I’m ready to be yet, but I think the heart in this book is very biblical and important to bring to our churches.
Recommendation
If you’ve become jaded by church or frustrated with division, this is the book for you. If you haven’t returned to church since Covid because no one has given you a reason to, this is the book for you. If you’re at church but you’re not sure why, this is the book for you. If you’ve never been to church because you don’t want to insert yourself into a mess, this is the book for you.
As the title suggests, Hansen and Leeman have written this great book to draw God’s people back together to rediscover church. A gathering of the body of Christ for Christ, for each other, and for others.
Church will never be perfect until Jesus returns, but it will never stop being important.
“We need churches that call us to something greater than ourselves. We need churches that call us finally to God. When we follow the example of Jesus, we get the church we need.”
If you are more interested in how differences in politics should be handled in church, check out Jonathan Leeman’s book How the Nations Rage.
I would also recommend Kevin DeYoung’s book What is the Mission of the Church?.
Other Quotes
“Families don’t always get along. But their bonds to one another as family members help them persevere through conflict. The shared blood prevails. The same is true for the church. Because we’ve been reconciled to God through repentance and faith, we’ve also reconciled to each other.”
“Sometimes people like to say that ‘a church is a people, not a place.’ It’s slightly more accurate to say that a church is a people assembled in a place… The point is, regularly gathering together is necessary for a church to be a church, just like a team has to gather to play in order to be a team.”
“Sadly, our churches won’t always declare and embody heaven well. We’ll disappoint you and say insensitive things. We’ll even sin against you. Our assemblies are merely signs and foreshadowing of that future heavenly assemble… They aren’t the things themselves. Yet we aspire to point you to the heart of heaven, who is Christ himself. He never sins or disappoints. The good news is that sinners like you can join us in that enterprise, if you’ll only confess your sins and follow after him.”
“Hearing a sermon isn’t just about you and your personal walk with Jesus. It’s also about shaping a heavenly culture and building a heavenly city in your very church. It’s about shaping a life together.”
“The sermon casts a vision from God’s Word for a particular people in a particular place, as they have covenanted together to obey God and love one another.”
“When you become a church member, you’re not just submitting to the leaders or the ‘institution’ in some vague bureaucratic sense. It’s your way of saying, ‘This is the particular group of Christians I’m inviting into my life and asking to keep me accountable in following Jesus. I’m asking them to take responsibility for my Christian walk. If I’m discouraged, it’s now their responsibility to encourage me. If I stray from the narrow path, it’s their responsibility to correct me. If I’m in dire financial straits, it’s their responsibility to look after me.’”
“The world gives us two options. One perspective asks us to celebrate diversity by prioritizing differences in ethnicity, nationality, gender, and, increasingly, sexual orientation. This perspective trains us to feel right and good when these various identities are included in our community. A room full of faces of the same color feels wrong, even immoral… A second perspective asks us to celebrate uniformity… Uniformity is considered the highest value. A room where people disagree with each other over politics or their view of the world feels wrong, even immoral… Both perspectives create community through exclusion.”
“…when a church obeys the commands of Jesus together. The commands to forsake anger. To reject lust. To love enemies. To give to the needy. To not be anxious about anything. When Christians inside act this way toward one another and toward outsiders, the world sees their good works as a city set on a hill and illuminated with the twinkling lights of Christmas. Their light shines in such a way that outsiders want to come inside and give glory to the Father in heaven.”
“You don’t need to be an extrovert to be a faithful church member. Some people have a lot of emotional energy to spend, some only have a little. We’re just saying, spend what you have. Be faithful with whatever resources God has given you to love and be loved by your church.”
“If you don’t participate regularly, you don’t get the formative experience of church. You don’t grow in biblical knowledge through the teaching or in relational depth through praying with others. And if you don’t seek the good of others, you learn to judge the church for how it fails to meet your needs and how others fail to reach out to you. Neither of us has ever seen people rediscover church and get what they want from the community unless they consistently show up and ask others how they can help.”
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
Covid-19 caused lockdowns and prevented churches from meeting in person. Churches adapted by moving to livestream and online services. But the year of 2020 brought divisions over many things— masks and vaccines, race protests, and the election and churches became less unified.
When doors re-opened, many people decided not to go back to church. What was the point? They disagreed with so many of the people and they could just find church online in the comfort of their home.
Hansen and Leeman have written this book to show why gathering as a church— the body of Christ— is so important. They come at it not from a utopian view, but with first-hand knowledge of the struggles churches have had and a plea for us to endure with each other even when it gets messy.
But first…. what is church?
The book is formatted around the answer to this question. Each chapter fleshes out one phrase of what it means to be a church:
“A group of Christians [Who can belong to the church?]
Who assemble as an earthly embassy of Christ’s heavenly kingdom [Do we really need to gather?]
To proclaim the good news and commands of Christ the King [Why are preaching and teaching central?]
To affirm one another as his citizens through the ordinances [Is joining actually necessary?]
And to display God’s own holiness and love [Is church discipline really loving?]
Through a unified and diverse people [How do I love members who are different?]
In all the world [How do we love outsiders?]
Following the teaching and example of elders” [Who leads?]
When I read this book I also had the corresponding study guide. Study guides are often repetitive and just busy work, but I thought this study guide book was really good. There are about 10 pages of questions for each chapter with space to write answers.
The questions are formed around quotes from the chapter with additional Bible passages not found in the book.
This book can be read alone (as I did) but I think it’s meant to be read in a group. The church learning together how to be a church. If you do read it in a group, I think you’ll want to have the study guide workbook as well. The questions are discussion-worthy and helpful in reflecting on the material. (I’ve included some pictures in my original post)
Hansen and Leeman ask us to ‘rediscover church.’ To return to a place that may have hurt you or frustrated you. To remember why we meet together. To reflect on how we view church and if it fits with what God has called us to in Scripture.
“You have many reasons not to rediscover church and one reason why you must: because through these people you don’t much like, God wants to show his love to you. It’s the only kind of love that can draw us out of ourselves and into a fellowship that transcends the forces tearing apart our sick world. It’s the only essential way for us to find healing together…
…Beyond all that, your church is where Christ says he’s present in a unique way.”
I was just reading a book about nature where the author commented on how nature is a cathedral. Eluding to the idea that we don’t need a building full of hypocrites. We can be closer to our Creator by spending time with him alone in nature.
Part of this is true. It’s great when we can spend time alone with God in his creation. But this can’t be a replacement for church.
God, as the Trinity, is in constant relationship. He created us to be in relationship with others. How can we love and serve and exhibit all the other fruit of the Spirit if we have removed ourselves from the gathering of God’s people?
It’s more convenient to ‘do church’ on our own time in our own way. We all have preferences and ideas of what church should look like or feel like. But then we creep into the consumer-mentality that church is just about what we can get out of it.
“What goes missing when your ‘church’ experience is nothing more than a weekly livestream? For starters, you think less about your fellow members. They don’t come to mind. You don’t bump into them and have the quick conversations that lead to longer conversations over dinner. Beyond that, you remove yourself from the path of encouragement, accountability, and love.”
“Gathering with the church can be inconvenient, but so is love. Relationships are messy, but so is love. Vulnerable conversations are scary, but so is love.”
This was one of the points that resonated the most with me. How can we create unity if we never see each other? How can we build trust if we’re never together? How can we serve the world in the most effective way if we’re isolated, alone, or indifferent?
“A church must build relationships of depth and endurance. It’s impossible to teach everything Jesus commanded to people you barely know and hardly see.”
As much as I agree with all of these things, I do think that there are some benefits to livestreams that neither author touched on. I do think pastors should encourage their congregation members away from relying on that and to invest in the church in-person.
But the livestream and online service is a way to include church members when they can’t physically be there for whatever reason. It also may make it easier for newcomers to come to church for the first time if they can watch a service ahead of time and know what to expect. Video services can reach people in other countries who may not have access to a church.
Virtual church can definitely become an unhealthy crutch or avoidance mechanism, but I’m not sure I’m ready to say nix it all.
One thing this book helped me understand better was the role of deacons. I was never part of a church where there were established roles called deacons. I think deacon and elder is often confused and can cause problems when women become involved in certain ministerial positions because congregation members don’t understand the particular office of leadership.
I didn’t realize that the word ‘deacon’ means to serve. So, in Scripture, when Jesus says that he came to serve and not be served, the word there is deacon. It’s a verb not a noun. Jesus came to deacon.
“If every Christian is called to serve and work to maintain the unity of the church, why formally recognize an office of deacon? Because it reminds the church how close such service is to the heart of the gospel and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Mk 10:45)
While I’m not sure if I would want to start establishing deacons called deacons, this book helped me know how to think of those roles in relation to elders.
A couple things I wondered about with this book were just what they would have be requirements for church membership. I’m not entirely sure what they think because they don’t mandate anything in their book, but it would seem they require church members to have been baptized. And they require the Lord’s Supper to only be for church members.
Granted, though baptism is not what saves you, if someone wasn’t baptized, I would probably wonder why. And maybe they just mean membership in the Church, big C, when it comes to the Lord’s Table. I don’t know.
I also saw a reviewer criticizing the book, not because of the content, but because of the authors. He felt the way the actually handled things during the pandemic contradicted what they put forth in this book.
I think I probably disagree with Hansen and Leeman on many things involving the pandemic, but does that mean we ignore their book? I don’t think so. I think what they’ve written here is truth. The things we disagree on about Covid are not major issues in matters of theology or salvation.
As this book itself states, we can still be part of God’s family with people we disagree with in matters like the pandemic.
I don’t think I’m going to hold their actions in 2020 in regards to how their church operated or how they viewed churches who operated differently than them against them. The year 2020 was unprecedented, no one really knew what was going on and what future months would actually look like. Church leaders were doing the best they could with the information they had in the places they were. Mistakes were made all over the place. This book has come out in the wake of that and to me that doesn’t show hypocrisy, it shows growth.
As I mentioned before, I think Hansen and Leeman are probably more against online services than I’m ready to be yet, but I think the heart in this book is very biblical and important to bring to our churches.
Recommendation
If you’ve become jaded by church or frustrated with division, this is the book for you. If you haven’t returned to church since Covid because no one has given you a reason to, this is the book for you. If you’re at church but you’re not sure why, this is the book for you. If you’ve never been to church because you don’t want to insert yourself into a mess, this is the book for you.
As the title suggests, Hansen and Leeman have written this great book to draw God’s people back together to rediscover church. A gathering of the body of Christ for Christ, for each other, and for others.
Church will never be perfect until Jesus returns, but it will never stop being important.
“We need churches that call us to something greater than ourselves. We need churches that call us finally to God. When we follow the example of Jesus, we get the church we need.”
If you are more interested in how differences in politics should be handled in church, check out Jonathan Leeman’s book How the Nations Rage.
I would also recommend Kevin DeYoung’s book What is the Mission of the Church?.
Other Quotes
“Families don’t always get along. But their bonds to one another as family members help them persevere through conflict. The shared blood prevails. The same is true for the church. Because we’ve been reconciled to God through repentance and faith, we’ve also reconciled to each other.”
“Sometimes people like to say that ‘a church is a people, not a place.’ It’s slightly more accurate to say that a church is a people assembled in a place… The point is, regularly gathering together is necessary for a church to be a church, just like a team has to gather to play in order to be a team.”
“Sadly, our churches won’t always declare and embody heaven well. We’ll disappoint you and say insensitive things. We’ll even sin against you. Our assemblies are merely signs and foreshadowing of that future heavenly assemble… They aren’t the things themselves. Yet we aspire to point you to the heart of heaven, who is Christ himself. He never sins or disappoints. The good news is that sinners like you can join us in that enterprise, if you’ll only confess your sins and follow after him.”
“Hearing a sermon isn’t just about you and your personal walk with Jesus. It’s also about shaping a heavenly culture and building a heavenly city in your very church. It’s about shaping a life together.”
“The sermon casts a vision from God’s Word for a particular people in a particular place, as they have covenanted together to obey God and love one another.”
“When you become a church member, you’re not just submitting to the leaders or the ‘institution’ in some vague bureaucratic sense. It’s your way of saying, ‘This is the particular group of Christians I’m inviting into my life and asking to keep me accountable in following Jesus. I’m asking them to take responsibility for my Christian walk. If I’m discouraged, it’s now their responsibility to encourage me. If I stray from the narrow path, it’s their responsibility to correct me. If I’m in dire financial straits, it’s their responsibility to look after me.’”
“The world gives us two options. One perspective asks us to celebrate diversity by prioritizing differences in ethnicity, nationality, gender, and, increasingly, sexual orientation. This perspective trains us to feel right and good when these various identities are included in our community. A room full of faces of the same color feels wrong, even immoral… A second perspective asks us to celebrate uniformity… Uniformity is considered the highest value. A room where people disagree with each other over politics or their view of the world feels wrong, even immoral… Both perspectives create community through exclusion.”
“…when a church obeys the commands of Jesus together. The commands to forsake anger. To reject lust. To love enemies. To give to the needy. To not be anxious about anything. When Christians inside act this way toward one another and toward outsiders, the world sees their good works as a city set on a hill and illuminated with the twinkling lights of Christmas. Their light shines in such a way that outsiders want to come inside and give glory to the Father in heaven.”
“You don’t need to be an extrovert to be a faithful church member. Some people have a lot of emotional energy to spend, some only have a little. We’re just saying, spend what you have. Be faithful with whatever resources God has given you to love and be loved by your church.”
“If you don’t participate regularly, you don’t get the formative experience of church. You don’t grow in biblical knowledge through the teaching or in relational depth through praying with others. And if you don’t seek the good of others, you learn to judge the church for how it fails to meet your needs and how others fail to reach out to you. Neither of us has ever seen people rediscover church and get what they want from the community unless they consistently show up and ask others how they can help.”
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“Never defend without a plan to attack.”
This is Robert Dugoni’s latest book with the potential to (hopefully) become a series.
It’s a legal thriller/locked room mystery about an Irish family’s struggling law firm, a daughter set out to prove herself, an investment advisor accused of killing his wealthy disabled wife, and a high stakes game of chess.
Dugoni can write a lot of genres very well. When I first started this book it felt a little slow, but once I realized it was more of a legal thriller than a suspense thriller I was able to settle in more and enjoy it properly.
As far as the mystery aspect goes, I didn’t have it completely figured out. I had generalities, but, based on his author’s note, he used a lot of outside help to develop the plot and it shows. There were definitely some complexities to how the wife died.
It was fitting for Dugoni to write around this quote:
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” — Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest
The mystery, the clues, the family dynamics, the legal drama— there is a lot to like in this book!
My only critiques are that I got tired of hearing about how uncharacteristically hot it was in Seattle, there was a little bit of hand-holding in describing some of the legal terms or proceedings, the overuse of the word ‘intimated’, and the fact that we didn’t get much information about the deceased until the end when we didn’t care as much.
Cast of Characters
Because I can see this becoming a series, let’s talk about the characters:
- Keera- main protagonist, former prosecuting attorney, now defense attorney working at her family’s firm in the wake of an ended abusive relationship; was a child chess prodigy; wishes she had a better relationship with her father, the selfish alcoholic she can’t depend on but has a lot of similar characteristics to him
(Also she eats carrots, salami, crackers, and a brick of cheddar cheese for lunch and that resonates with me)
- Patsy (Patrick)- a.k.a. The Irish Brawler, successful defense attorney well-known for his risky antics and out-of-the-box trial strategies; also known for his alcoholism which has hurt his reputation, his firm, and most importantly, his family
"In his day, Patsy had been fearless and unpredictable. Now, Keera feared he was just unpredictable.”
- Ambrose- the prosecutor and former boyfriend of Keera; determined to beat and humiliate Keera in court
- Rossi- detective for the prosecution; interested in Keera (will this relationship develop in future books?); stuck between working for a prosecutor he doesn’t respect and wanting to do the right thing
- Ella & Maggie- Keera’s sisters who also work at the firm; Ella is the smart, business-minded hard-working paperwork queen; Maggie is the self-proclaimed black sheep of the family who is good at playing the victim
Bonus: this crosses over with the Tracy Crosswhite series as two of the detectives put on the case are Vic and Del- The Italian Stallions. We could see some more interaction here in future books as well.
I think if this ends up being a stand-alone book I’ll be a little disappointed and feel like there wasn’t quite enough character resolution. But since I have high hopes for some others, I’ll let that slide!
Playing Chess Not Checkers
All the reality show players who use that phrase would enjoy the chess part of this story. Because we all know chess is a more complicated long game than measly checkers, right?
In his author’s note, Dugoni stated: “I wanted to create a protagonist who came from a dysfunctional family, but who had escaped by becoming a chess prodigy. Why chess? Because I knew very good trial attorneys who were also very good chess players… They told me in law and in chess you strategized not just your next move but for the many moves your opponent might make and how you might combat those moves.”
In this way, the chess aspect was a compelling addition.
Dugoni had Keera playing an ongoing online chess game with an unknown opponent named The Dark Knight. As the chess game progressed, the trial progressed. Keera’s defensive and offensive moves in the chess game represented her strategy in the trial, so we got a bit of foreshadowing as we saw the moves play out.
The downside to including the chess game was that it was a bit technical. It was a ‘pawn to h6,’ ‘knight to h2’ description throughout. Unless you’re very familiar with chess, it won’t make much visual sense to you. I think a lot of readers will skim over those sections and possibly be frustrated by them.
People who know how to play chess will probably enjoy them.
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve played chess. But if the chess game Dugoni included in there is one between two really good chess players, I’m tempted to go back through with an actual chess board in front of me and play the game out myself, maybe learn a few things!
Things I Learned
“Ghost guns were the bane of police officers, made from a kit that could be purchased online or at gun shows without the buyer providing identification and without a background check. They also did not have a traceable serial number.”
This was crazy to learn about! You can 3D print a gun. Technology is nuts. There are lots of opinions about gun control these days. I don’t even know what ‘gun control’ even means anymore. But I am glad that they added some restrictions to these gun kits that weren’t there before. Because the guns were not assembled, they had (prior) not been treated like real guns and thus anyone—even a kid— could order these kits. Definitely a problem.
But according to an NPR article in 2022 they are now treating these ghost guns like real guns: requiring background checks to buy them, requiring serial numbers to be put on in manufacturing and that existing ghost guns get serial numbers added to them, and not allowing criminals to buy them.
I think that is a fantastic rule change and I’m surprised they didn’t see the potential problems with these things when they first arrived on the scene!
And seriously… 3D printing is like magic to me. Can we just 3D print clones by now or something?!
They talk about Rainier Square Tower in the book and how it looks like a long water slide. So obviously I had to know what that looked like. If you Google images of it, you’ll see it does indeed look like a water slide.
There is a move in chess called ‘castling your king’ in which I have never heard of this in my entire life. Which isn’t entirely surprising but still… it blows my mind a little bit that move exists. I looked up more about it and it’s not quite what Dugoni described in the book. It’s not an exact switching of places, but the King moves two spaces and the rook then moves two spaces over the King. However— you can’t do this if the King or the rook has moved already in the game, if the King is in check or if the spaces he moves across would put him in check. Anways. Little fun chess fact that I’ll probably never use correctly in my life.
Another chess move: the fianchetto bishop. This is a thing. But I can’t explain any of it to you.
I have read a lot of legal thrillers. How am I just learning these phrases now?:
SODDI defense: Some Other Dude Did It.
‘voir dire’ which means “a preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a judge or counsel.”
Omnibus hearing: “An omnibus hearing is a pretrial hearing. It is usually held soon after a defendant's arraignment. The main purpose of the hearing is to determine the evidence, including testimony and evidence seized at the time of arrest.”
Case in Chief: “The portion of a trial whereby the party with the burden of proof in the case presents its evidence. The term differs from a rebuttal, whereby a party seeks to contradict the other party's evidence.”
[definitions from Wikipedia]
Recommendation
If you don’t like legal thrillers, you probably wouldn’t enjoy this book— there is a lot of courtroom drama and trial strategizing throughout the book.
As long as that doesn’t describe you, I think this book is worth reading!
I read it very quickly and was engaged the entire time wondering not only how this deadly game would play out, but would Keera and her father reconcile? Would her father pull through for her when she needed him the most?
Dugoni continues to be one of my favorite authors. He spins a good story, writes well and creatively, AND does it without all the swearing and sexual content other writers use.
Even if you don’t like legal thrillers, check out some of Robert Dugoni’s other books!
[Content Advisory: 2 f-words; 26 s-words; no sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
This is Robert Dugoni’s latest book with the potential to (hopefully) become a series.
It’s a legal thriller/locked room mystery about an Irish family’s struggling law firm, a daughter set out to prove herself, an investment advisor accused of killing his wealthy disabled wife, and a high stakes game of chess.
Dugoni can write a lot of genres very well. When I first started this book it felt a little slow, but once I realized it was more of a legal thriller than a suspense thriller I was able to settle in more and enjoy it properly.
As far as the mystery aspect goes, I didn’t have it completely figured out. I had generalities, but, based on his author’s note, he used a lot of outside help to develop the plot and it shows. There were definitely some complexities to how the wife died.
It was fitting for Dugoni to write around this quote:
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” — Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest
The mystery, the clues, the family dynamics, the legal drama— there is a lot to like in this book!
My only critiques are that I got tired of hearing about how uncharacteristically hot it was in Seattle, there was a little bit of hand-holding in describing some of the legal terms or proceedings, the overuse of the word ‘intimated’, and the fact that we didn’t get much information about the deceased until the end when we didn’t care as much.
Cast of Characters
Because I can see this becoming a series, let’s talk about the characters:
- Keera- main protagonist, former prosecuting attorney, now defense attorney working at her family’s firm in the wake of an ended abusive relationship; was a child chess prodigy; wishes she had a better relationship with her father, the selfish alcoholic she can’t depend on but has a lot of similar characteristics to him
(Also she eats carrots, salami, crackers, and a brick of cheddar cheese for lunch and that resonates with me)
- Patsy (Patrick)- a.k.a. The Irish Brawler, successful defense attorney well-known for his risky antics and out-of-the-box trial strategies; also known for his alcoholism which has hurt his reputation, his firm, and most importantly, his family
"In his day, Patsy had been fearless and unpredictable. Now, Keera feared he was just unpredictable.”
- Ambrose- the prosecutor and former boyfriend of Keera; determined to beat and humiliate Keera in court
- Rossi- detective for the prosecution; interested in Keera (will this relationship develop in future books?); stuck between working for a prosecutor he doesn’t respect and wanting to do the right thing
- Ella & Maggie- Keera’s sisters who also work at the firm; Ella is the smart, business-minded hard-working paperwork queen; Maggie is the self-proclaimed black sheep of the family who is good at playing the victim
Bonus: this crosses over with the Tracy Crosswhite series as two of the detectives put on the case are Vic and Del- The Italian Stallions. We could see some more interaction here in future books as well.
I think if this ends up being a stand-alone book I’ll be a little disappointed and feel like there wasn’t quite enough character resolution. But since I have high hopes for some others, I’ll let that slide!
Playing Chess Not Checkers
All the reality show players who use that phrase would enjoy the chess part of this story. Because we all know chess is a more complicated long game than measly checkers, right?
In his author’s note, Dugoni stated: “I wanted to create a protagonist who came from a dysfunctional family, but who had escaped by becoming a chess prodigy. Why chess? Because I knew very good trial attorneys who were also very good chess players… They told me in law and in chess you strategized not just your next move but for the many moves your opponent might make and how you might combat those moves.”
In this way, the chess aspect was a compelling addition.
Dugoni had Keera playing an ongoing online chess game with an unknown opponent named The Dark Knight. As the chess game progressed, the trial progressed. Keera’s defensive and offensive moves in the chess game represented her strategy in the trial, so we got a bit of foreshadowing as we saw the moves play out.
The downside to including the chess game was that it was a bit technical. It was a ‘pawn to h6,’ ‘knight to h2’ description throughout. Unless you’re very familiar with chess, it won’t make much visual sense to you. I think a lot of readers will skim over those sections and possibly be frustrated by them.
People who know how to play chess will probably enjoy them.
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve played chess. But if the chess game Dugoni included in there is one between two really good chess players, I’m tempted to go back through with an actual chess board in front of me and play the game out myself, maybe learn a few things!
Things I Learned
“Ghost guns were the bane of police officers, made from a kit that could be purchased online or at gun shows without the buyer providing identification and without a background check. They also did not have a traceable serial number.”
This was crazy to learn about! You can 3D print a gun. Technology is nuts. There are lots of opinions about gun control these days. I don’t even know what ‘gun control’ even means anymore. But I am glad that they added some restrictions to these gun kits that weren’t there before. Because the guns were not assembled, they had (prior) not been treated like real guns and thus anyone—even a kid— could order these kits. Definitely a problem.
But according to an NPR article in 2022 they are now treating these ghost guns like real guns: requiring background checks to buy them, requiring serial numbers to be put on in manufacturing and that existing ghost guns get serial numbers added to them, and not allowing criminals to buy them.
I think that is a fantastic rule change and I’m surprised they didn’t see the potential problems with these things when they first arrived on the scene!
And seriously… 3D printing is like magic to me. Can we just 3D print clones by now or something?!
They talk about Rainier Square Tower in the book and how it looks like a long water slide. So obviously I had to know what that looked like. If you Google images of it, you’ll see it does indeed look like a water slide.
There is a move in chess called ‘castling your king’ in which
Another chess move: the fianchetto bishop. This is a thing. But I can’t explain any of it to you.
I have read a lot of legal thrillers. How am I just learning these phrases now?:
SODDI defense: Some Other Dude Did It.
‘voir dire’ which means “a preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a judge or counsel.”
Omnibus hearing: “An omnibus hearing is a pretrial hearing. It is usually held soon after a defendant's arraignment. The main purpose of the hearing is to determine the evidence, including testimony and evidence seized at the time of arrest.”
Case in Chief: “The portion of a trial whereby the party with the burden of proof in the case presents its evidence. The term differs from a rebuttal, whereby a party seeks to contradict the other party's evidence.”
[definitions from Wikipedia]
Recommendation
If you don’t like legal thrillers, you probably wouldn’t enjoy this book— there is a lot of courtroom drama and trial strategizing throughout the book.
As long as that doesn’t describe you, I think this book is worth reading!
I read it very quickly and was engaged the entire time wondering not only how this deadly game would play out, but would Keera and her father reconcile? Would her father pull through for her when she needed him the most?
Dugoni continues to be one of my favorite authors. He spins a good story, writes well and creatively, AND does it without all the swearing and sexual content other writers use.
Even if you don’t like legal thrillers, check out some of Robert Dugoni’s other books!
[Content Advisory: 2 f-words; 26 s-words; no sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
-%20Exposing%20Popular%20Deceptions%20That%20Make%20Us%20Anxious,%20Exhausted,%20and%20Self-Obsessed.jpg)
“Will you choose to stand on the unchanging truth of the God-breathed Scriptures, or will you choose whatever trendy catchphrase people are currently obsessed with?”
Alisa Childers (author of ‘Another Gospel?’) was part of the Christian band ZOEGirl back in the 90s. She had her own deconstruction journey and questioned her faith and Christianity. In her study and questioning, she reconstructed in truth and is now an apologist. Her podcast, blog, and more can be accessed HERE.
She also received over a million hits on her article she posted in response to Rachel Hollis’s book Girl, Wash Your Face which reflected a lot of my own thoughts on it.
I was drawn to this book because of the title—Live Your Truth (and Other Lies). I hear that phrase ‘live your truth’ so often as positive encouragement. What Childers tackles in this book is exposing phrases like this and ideas that are marketed as positive and life-changing and showing how they actually promote the worship of self instead of God.
She quotes a lot of popular progressive Christians who have drawn an audience by espousing these ideas and shows how they are leading Christians astray.
If you’re a fan of Jen Hatmaker (Fierce, Free, and Full of Fire and For the Love), Glennon Doyle (Untamed), and Rachel Hollis (Girl, Wash Your Face and Girl, Stop Apologizing), you may find this book insightful and possibly even surprising.
If you’ve thought there’s just something off about some of the ideas these Christians promote but can’t put your finger on why, this book will affirm your discernment and wariness and direct you to what God’s Word says about them.
Wherever you stand on these phrases, it’s worth pondering whether the underlying principles of these phrases align with the gospel message.
What are the Lies?
Of course there are more than ten lies in the world, but in this book she has chosen to focus on these popular ones:
- Live your truth.
- You are enough.
- Put yourself first.
- Authenticity is everything.
- YOLO
- God just wants you to be happy.
- You shouldn’t judge.
- You’re the boss of you.
- Love means agreeing.
- Girls are most powerful when they act like men.
Are you uncomfortable? You’ve heard these a lot right? You maybe even promote them yourself. They sound so encouraging. Many of them fall under the cultural umbrella of ‘self-love.’ Aren’t we supposed to love ourselves? After all, God created us in his image and we should be physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy.
It is true that we are image-bearers and being healthy is a way to honor God with our bodies. But self-love inevitably elevates self above self-sacrifice. It takes truths of the Bible and twists them, or in some ways completely ignores what the Bible actually teaches.
“What if those little slogans that sound positive and life-affirming are really just lies that will unhinge us from truth, reality, and hope? Relying on popular wisdom can cause unnecessary pain and confusion. In other cases, it leads to absolute bondage to whatever virtue signal of the day is dominating the internet.”
Childers takes each of these lies and sheds the light of Scripture on the truth behind the lie. And in case you need this reminder, the truth is not discouraging. The truth actually frees us from having to be our own saviors, our own constant source of strength and sufficiency. The truth actually offers rest, hope, and authenticity and love as God intended.
“Recognizing who we are in Christ is the ultimate self-care because the Word of God doesn’t reinvent itself along with a constantly changing culture.”
How to Be Deceived in 7 Easy Steps
Childers includes this list in her book and I think it’s super helpful to think about as we discern the messages we hear in the world, whether from secular or Christian sources.
And again, these are not Childers’ invention. We see these at play when Adam and Eve first sinned. If you want to follow Glennon Doyle’s suggestion that “Maybe Eve was never meant to be our warning. Maybe she was meant to be our model. Own your wanting. Eat the apple,” then essentially you’re attempting to become your own god.
Like Eve, if you want to be deceived by lies, follow these steps:
1. Question what God actually said.
2. Twist what God said.
3. Paint God like the mean bully in the sky who uses fear tactics to keep you from having any fun.
4. Persuade you to trust yourself more than you trust God and his Word.
5. Catapult your life into darkness and chaos.
6. Convince yourself that darkness and chaos are actually good things.
7. Rinse, recycle, repeat.
Take a moment to reflect. I think we do these a lot more fluidly than we realize. We like to trust ourselves and believe things that feel good and allow us to do whatever we want.
“It’s easy to point people to themselves. There will always be a market for that. We love it! We love to talk about ourselves, focus on ourselves, pamper ourselves, and adore ourselves… But we were not created to worship ourselves.”
My Favorite Parts
Childers is bold and has a great sense of humor. This book is easy to read— she shares information in a really accessible and oftentimes entertaining way. Yet it is also gospel-centered and Scripture-filled.
Other reviewers have commented that she is merely presenting ‘her truth’ as what everyone should believe. But that is not the case. She is not just offering a forceful opinion. She is offering biblical evidence, context, and linguistic information to support a historically believed truth.
She touches on linguistic theft (quoting the fantastic book Mama Bear Apologetics, in which she was a contributor). Linguistic theft describes the practice the culture has made of redefining words like love, tolerance, bigot, justice, truth, hate, etc. This is a significant thing and the cause of many hurtful conversations. If we’re not operating from the same definitions, we are not understanding each other properly.
One of the most important of these words is ‘truth.’ As Christians, we should believe in objective truth. And we can know truth. After all, ‘true’ just means ‘corresponding to reality.’
“Truth is true for all people in all places and times. It’s also something you can’t invent, think up, or create. It is something you discover. It doesn’t change, no matter how much people’s beliefs about it do. Truth isn’t altered because of how it makes someone feel. Truth is entirely unaffected by the tone and attitude of the person professing it. A lie is still a lie even when communicated with humor and just the right amount of whimsy.”
“Defending the gospel requires defending objective truth. There’s no way around it. Christianity is based on truth.”
It makes me sad when I see everyone trying to be authentic and struggling with who they actually are. They’re so often not looking in the right place. And even as they attempt authenticity, they are unfulfilled and depressed. Because our own attempts to define ourselves are never going to be enough.
“Living according to the truth is the most authentic way to live because it’s what we were made for.”
“Paul writes, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” That doesn’t mean the unique talents, personalities, and giftings we’ve been created with are dead. Rather, we continually put to death the sin that stains and taints those God-given gifts and qualities. This frees us to be who we were truly created to be.”
When our identity is in Christ, He defines the truth, and we allow God to sanctify the ways we taint the gifts he’s given us, we find true authenticity.
“As Christians, we have to submit our inner lives to the authority of Scripture, and sometimes that requires denying our desires, repenting of our sinful proclivities, and reforming our ideas to align with God’s revealed truth. When we don’t do that, we can find ourselves fighting against God and trying to build our identities on a cracked foundation.”
Another thing I think about a lot that she addresses in her book is that to love someone doesn’t mean you always agree with them.
She quotes Glennon Doyle saying:
“If you want to change me, you do not love me… If you wish me well but vote against my family being protected by the law, you do not love me… to love me as yourself means to want for me and for my family every good thing you want for yourself and your family. Anything less than that is less than love.”
This is a common sentiment- love doesn’t desire change in someone. But that is not logical. Of course anyone is welcome at the foot of the cross exactly as they are, but Jesus doesn’t leave us there. The Bible clearly teaches sanctification which is God changing us to be more like himself.
Doyle’s definition would mean that Jesus isn’t loving. It would also mean that she herself isn’t loving because these words were directed towards her friend whom she was subtly trying to change.
Childers rightly points us to the famous 1 Corinthians 13 passage who helps inform our view of biblical love:
"‘It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.’ (You mean, I can’t demand that other people capitulate to my very specific theological and political views if they want to love me?) Next Paul wrote, ‘It does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.’ (Well, shoot. This means that when I’m a loving person, I cannot rejoice in sinful behavior but am commanded to rejoice only when things line up with the truth of God’s Word?) According to Scripture, love means I cannot affirm someone in their sin, even if they insist that love requires that. In that sense, the biblical definition of love is the exact opposite of the cultural one.”
“True biblical love is neither a trite affirmation of someone’s life choices nor holding someone hostage to our own politics or theology.”
Now to still show compassion even in disagreement is challenging and I fail at that regularly. But it exposes that lie that anything that feels good must be true and right. God gave us emotions so they must be important, but he also gave us his Word which is far more important than feelings. And His Word warns us that our hearts are deceitful. They cannot be our ultimate authority in determining what is right and wrong.
The choice Childers gives us to either follow our heart or follow God is a real choice.
Our hearts can still lead us to sin. They can lead us to celebrate sin. But God’s Word will always direct us to truth and life.
Conclusion
While there is a bit of overlap on this book with Mama Apologetics, this is still a valuable read. The tone here is a bit different. Mama Bear Apologetics takes on the ‘-isms’ like feminism, moral relativism, Marxism, etc., but Live Your Truth takes on specific phrases.
Books like the ones Hatmaker and Hollis (at least before her meltdown) put out garner a lot of interest. I wish Childers had quoted more of the other progressive Christian authors that have become popular as well, because Christians are getting sucked into this positive, seemingly healthy worldview that is really based on anti-gospel ideas.
It’s going to take some humility, honesty, and willingness to self-reflect for us to recognize some of the lies we’re believing. But Childers is a great writer to take us on that journey. She is a bold lover of truth (and hopefully my future best friend) who has courageously written this book, knowing that she will face a lot of backlash.
“it must be said that if 99.9 percent of a god-hating culture loves you and your message, chances are you are not being prophetic. They killed the prophets. They adore influencers who sanctify sin.”
If we fit in too much with the culture, we may have strayed from the radical and selfless teachings of Jesus.
“None of the lies we’ve talked about in this book can exist in the same space as the Cross. If you want to be enough for yourself, you cannot have the Cross. It is the irritant that aggravates our sense of self-sufficiency, and it is the remedy that cures the defect that self-sufficiency creates.”
If you haven’t figured it out yet— I highly recommend this book!
More Quotes:
“‘You are enough’ is a message that enslaves people to the false idea that they are responsible to be the mastermind of their current circumstances and future realities—even when they feel overwhelmed. It burdens them with the obligation of being the source of their own joy, contentment, and peace.”
“You are not enough, but when your trust is placed in Jesus, his enough-ness is transferred to you.”
“The self can’t be both the problem and the solution. If our problem is that we’re insecure or unfulfilled, we’re not going to be able to find the antidote to these things in the same place our insecurities and fear are coming from.”— Allie Beth Stuckey
“When we dedicate our lives to serving God and others, we are not like a car running out of gas. We are more like a house with solar panels.”
“The secret is Christ in me, not me in a different set of circumstances.”— Elisabeth Elliot
“Authenticity is not unimportant. It’s not wrong when defined correctly, but it’s not everything. Do you want to know what is everything? God’s holiness. That’s everything.”
“Heaven is not escapist. Worldliness is escapist. Heaven is home.”
“Popular culture tells us that happiness means controlling our circumstances in a way that allows us to have those good feelings as often as possible, and if we don’t experience those good feelings, we should change our circumstances. Are you unhappy in your marriage? Get a divorce. Feeling down? Get drunk. Overwhelmed by motherhood? Take to social media to vent about what little monsters your kids are.”
“Biblical happiness doesn’t come from having stuff, feeling good about our circumstances, or even finding romantic fulfillment. Those things feel good, but they can’t bring ultimate happiness. In some cases, they may even distract us from real happiness. True biblical happiness is knowing deep down that no matter our circumstances, we were lost and now we’re found. We have experienced the love of Christ, which always brings encouragement and comfort.”
“Scripture actually commands us to judge but to do it carefully, rightly, humbly, and without hypocrisy.”
“In our culture, to claim that there are differences between men and women has become taboo. Sadly, we’ve taken all the strengths that men typically possess and made them the standard of goodness and value. Because of this, women feel they need to fight like a man, compete with men in the workplace, and achieve all the things men do. But why is no one making womanhood the standard of goodness and value?”
“Take, for example, the claim that women are “too emotional.” Why do we automatically believe this is a negative stereotype that must be toppled in order to crush the patriarchy? Could it be that God actually hardwired an emotional intelligence into women because they are literally responsible for bringing all the new humans into the world? Could it be that they need to be naturally intuitive and nurturing, with sharp instincts designed toward the survival and flourishing of individuals? Instead of viewing this as a weakness to be overcome, I praise God for the beauty of his diverse creation.”
“The fruit wasn’t something good that was being withheld but something incredibly destructive that God was protecting Adam and Eve from.”
“Satan wants us to view God’s commands as barriers that keep us from enjoying the things we are entitled to. In reality, God is protecting us from what will harm us.”
“Already we can see the precious value assigned to women from their creation. From the language used to describe God’s divine activity to the man’s response and the woman’s role, the Bible ascribes a value to woman that was unique in the ancient world.”
“Sometimes I think we humans tend to downplay our own sinfulness, not realizing how much our sin is an affront to a holy God.”
Books She References
Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies by Hillary Morgan Ferrer
Live Not by Lies by Rod Dreher
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity- and Why This Harms Everybody by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay
The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff (on my TBR)
Other Relevant Books:
The Intolerance of Tolerance by D.A. Carson (discusses the changing definition of tolerance)
The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims by Rebecca McLaughlin (discusses the ‘love is love’ sentiment)
You Who?: Why You Matter and How to Deal With It by Rachel Jankovic (a book basically in response to Girl, Wash Your Face and one of my favorites)
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
Alisa Childers (author of ‘Another Gospel?’) was part of the Christian band ZOEGirl back in the 90s. She had her own deconstruction journey and questioned her faith and Christianity. In her study and questioning, she reconstructed in truth and is now an apologist. Her podcast, blog, and more can be accessed HERE.
She also received over a million hits on her article she posted in response to Rachel Hollis’s book Girl, Wash Your Face which reflected a lot of my own thoughts on it.
I was drawn to this book because of the title—Live Your Truth (and Other Lies). I hear that phrase ‘live your truth’ so often as positive encouragement. What Childers tackles in this book is exposing phrases like this and ideas that are marketed as positive and life-changing and showing how they actually promote the worship of self instead of God.
She quotes a lot of popular progressive Christians who have drawn an audience by espousing these ideas and shows how they are leading Christians astray.
If you’re a fan of Jen Hatmaker (Fierce, Free, and Full of Fire and For the Love), Glennon Doyle (Untamed), and Rachel Hollis (Girl, Wash Your Face and Girl, Stop Apologizing), you may find this book insightful and possibly even surprising.
If you’ve thought there’s just something off about some of the ideas these Christians promote but can’t put your finger on why, this book will affirm your discernment and wariness and direct you to what God’s Word says about them.
Wherever you stand on these phrases, it’s worth pondering whether the underlying principles of these phrases align with the gospel message.
What are the Lies?
Of course there are more than ten lies in the world, but in this book she has chosen to focus on these popular ones:
- Live your truth.
- You are enough.
- Put yourself first.
- Authenticity is everything.
- YOLO
- God just wants you to be happy.
- You shouldn’t judge.
- You’re the boss of you.
- Love means agreeing.
- Girls are most powerful when they act like men.
Are you uncomfortable? You’ve heard these a lot right? You maybe even promote them yourself. They sound so encouraging. Many of them fall under the cultural umbrella of ‘self-love.’ Aren’t we supposed to love ourselves? After all, God created us in his image and we should be physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy.
It is true that we are image-bearers and being healthy is a way to honor God with our bodies. But self-love inevitably elevates self above self-sacrifice. It takes truths of the Bible and twists them, or in some ways completely ignores what the Bible actually teaches.
“What if those little slogans that sound positive and life-affirming are really just lies that will unhinge us from truth, reality, and hope? Relying on popular wisdom can cause unnecessary pain and confusion. In other cases, it leads to absolute bondage to whatever virtue signal of the day is dominating the internet.”
Childers takes each of these lies and sheds the light of Scripture on the truth behind the lie. And in case you need this reminder, the truth is not discouraging. The truth actually frees us from having to be our own saviors, our own constant source of strength and sufficiency. The truth actually offers rest, hope, and authenticity and love as God intended.
“Recognizing who we are in Christ is the ultimate self-care because the Word of God doesn’t reinvent itself along with a constantly changing culture.”
How to Be Deceived in 7 Easy Steps
Childers includes this list in her book and I think it’s super helpful to think about as we discern the messages we hear in the world, whether from secular or Christian sources.
And again, these are not Childers’ invention. We see these at play when Adam and Eve first sinned. If you want to follow Glennon Doyle’s suggestion that “Maybe Eve was never meant to be our warning. Maybe she was meant to be our model. Own your wanting. Eat the apple,” then essentially you’re attempting to become your own god.
Like Eve, if you want to be deceived by lies, follow these steps:
1. Question what God actually said.
2. Twist what God said.
3. Paint God like the mean bully in the sky who uses fear tactics to keep you from having any fun.
4. Persuade you to trust yourself more than you trust God and his Word.
5. Catapult your life into darkness and chaos.
6. Convince yourself that darkness and chaos are actually good things.
7. Rinse, recycle, repeat.
Take a moment to reflect. I think we do these a lot more fluidly than we realize. We like to trust ourselves and believe things that feel good and allow us to do whatever we want.
“It’s easy to point people to themselves. There will always be a market for that. We love it! We love to talk about ourselves, focus on ourselves, pamper ourselves, and adore ourselves… But we were not created to worship ourselves.”
My Favorite Parts
Childers is bold and has a great sense of humor. This book is easy to read— she shares information in a really accessible and oftentimes entertaining way. Yet it is also gospel-centered and Scripture-filled.
Other reviewers have commented that she is merely presenting ‘her truth’ as what everyone should believe. But that is not the case. She is not just offering a forceful opinion. She is offering biblical evidence, context, and linguistic information to support a historically believed truth.
She touches on linguistic theft (quoting the fantastic book Mama Bear Apologetics, in which she was a contributor). Linguistic theft describes the practice the culture has made of redefining words like love, tolerance, bigot, justice, truth, hate, etc. This is a significant thing and the cause of many hurtful conversations. If we’re not operating from the same definitions, we are not understanding each other properly.
One of the most important of these words is ‘truth.’ As Christians, we should believe in objective truth. And we can know truth. After all, ‘true’ just means ‘corresponding to reality.’
“Truth is true for all people in all places and times. It’s also something you can’t invent, think up, or create. It is something you discover. It doesn’t change, no matter how much people’s beliefs about it do. Truth isn’t altered because of how it makes someone feel. Truth is entirely unaffected by the tone and attitude of the person professing it. A lie is still a lie even when communicated with humor and just the right amount of whimsy.”
“Defending the gospel requires defending objective truth. There’s no way around it. Christianity is based on truth.”
It makes me sad when I see everyone trying to be authentic and struggling with who they actually are. They’re so often not looking in the right place. And even as they attempt authenticity, they are unfulfilled and depressed. Because our own attempts to define ourselves are never going to be enough.
“Living according to the truth is the most authentic way to live because it’s what we were made for.”
“Paul writes, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” That doesn’t mean the unique talents, personalities, and giftings we’ve been created with are dead. Rather, we continually put to death the sin that stains and taints those God-given gifts and qualities. This frees us to be who we were truly created to be.”
When our identity is in Christ, He defines the truth, and we allow God to sanctify the ways we taint the gifts he’s given us, we find true authenticity.
“As Christians, we have to submit our inner lives to the authority of Scripture, and sometimes that requires denying our desires, repenting of our sinful proclivities, and reforming our ideas to align with God’s revealed truth. When we don’t do that, we can find ourselves fighting against God and trying to build our identities on a cracked foundation.”
Another thing I think about a lot that she addresses in her book is that to love someone doesn’t mean you always agree with them.
She quotes Glennon Doyle saying:
“If you want to change me, you do not love me… If you wish me well but vote against my family being protected by the law, you do not love me… to love me as yourself means to want for me and for my family every good thing you want for yourself and your family. Anything less than that is less than love.”
This is a common sentiment- love doesn’t desire change in someone. But that is not logical. Of course anyone is welcome at the foot of the cross exactly as they are, but Jesus doesn’t leave us there. The Bible clearly teaches sanctification which is God changing us to be more like himself.
Doyle’s definition would mean that Jesus isn’t loving. It would also mean that she herself isn’t loving because these words were directed towards her friend whom she was subtly trying to change.
Childers rightly points us to the famous 1 Corinthians 13 passage who helps inform our view of biblical love:
"‘It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.’ (You mean, I can’t demand that other people capitulate to my very specific theological and political views if they want to love me?) Next Paul wrote, ‘It does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.’ (Well, shoot. This means that when I’m a loving person, I cannot rejoice in sinful behavior but am commanded to rejoice only when things line up with the truth of God’s Word?) According to Scripture, love means I cannot affirm someone in their sin, even if they insist that love requires that. In that sense, the biblical definition of love is the exact opposite of the cultural one.”
“True biblical love is neither a trite affirmation of someone’s life choices nor holding someone hostage to our own politics or theology.”
Now to still show compassion even in disagreement is challenging and I fail at that regularly. But it exposes that lie that anything that feels good must be true and right. God gave us emotions so they must be important, but he also gave us his Word which is far more important than feelings. And His Word warns us that our hearts are deceitful. They cannot be our ultimate authority in determining what is right and wrong.
The choice Childers gives us to either follow our heart or follow God is a real choice.
Our hearts can still lead us to sin. They can lead us to celebrate sin. But God’s Word will always direct us to truth and life.
Conclusion
While there is a bit of overlap on this book with Mama Apologetics, this is still a valuable read. The tone here is a bit different. Mama Bear Apologetics takes on the ‘-isms’ like feminism, moral relativism, Marxism, etc., but Live Your Truth takes on specific phrases.
Books like the ones Hatmaker and Hollis (at least before her meltdown) put out garner a lot of interest. I wish Childers had quoted more of the other progressive Christian authors that have become popular as well, because Christians are getting sucked into this positive, seemingly healthy worldview that is really based on anti-gospel ideas.
It’s going to take some humility, honesty, and willingness to self-reflect for us to recognize some of the lies we’re believing. But Childers is a great writer to take us on that journey. She is a bold lover of truth (and hopefully my future best friend) who has courageously written this book, knowing that she will face a lot of backlash.
“it must be said that if 99.9 percent of a god-hating culture loves you and your message, chances are you are not being prophetic. They killed the prophets. They adore influencers who sanctify sin.”
If we fit in too much with the culture, we may have strayed from the radical and selfless teachings of Jesus.
“None of the lies we’ve talked about in this book can exist in the same space as the Cross. If you want to be enough for yourself, you cannot have the Cross. It is the irritant that aggravates our sense of self-sufficiency, and it is the remedy that cures the defect that self-sufficiency creates.”
If you haven’t figured it out yet— I highly recommend this book!
More Quotes:
“‘You are enough’ is a message that enslaves people to the false idea that they are responsible to be the mastermind of their current circumstances and future realities—even when they feel overwhelmed. It burdens them with the obligation of being the source of their own joy, contentment, and peace.”
“You are not enough, but when your trust is placed in Jesus, his enough-ness is transferred to you.”
“The self can’t be both the problem and the solution. If our problem is that we’re insecure or unfulfilled, we’re not going to be able to find the antidote to these things in the same place our insecurities and fear are coming from.”— Allie Beth Stuckey
“When we dedicate our lives to serving God and others, we are not like a car running out of gas. We are more like a house with solar panels.”
“The secret is Christ in me, not me in a different set of circumstances.”— Elisabeth Elliot
“Authenticity is not unimportant. It’s not wrong when defined correctly, but it’s not everything. Do you want to know what is everything? God’s holiness. That’s everything.”
“Heaven is not escapist. Worldliness is escapist. Heaven is home.”
“Popular culture tells us that happiness means controlling our circumstances in a way that allows us to have those good feelings as often as possible, and if we don’t experience those good feelings, we should change our circumstances. Are you unhappy in your marriage? Get a divorce. Feeling down? Get drunk. Overwhelmed by motherhood? Take to social media to vent about what little monsters your kids are.”
“Biblical happiness doesn’t come from having stuff, feeling good about our circumstances, or even finding romantic fulfillment. Those things feel good, but they can’t bring ultimate happiness. In some cases, they may even distract us from real happiness. True biblical happiness is knowing deep down that no matter our circumstances, we were lost and now we’re found. We have experienced the love of Christ, which always brings encouragement and comfort.”
“Scripture actually commands us to judge but to do it carefully, rightly, humbly, and without hypocrisy.”
“In our culture, to claim that there are differences between men and women has become taboo. Sadly, we’ve taken all the strengths that men typically possess and made them the standard of goodness and value. Because of this, women feel they need to fight like a man, compete with men in the workplace, and achieve all the things men do. But why is no one making womanhood the standard of goodness and value?”
“Take, for example, the claim that women are “too emotional.” Why do we automatically believe this is a negative stereotype that must be toppled in order to crush the patriarchy? Could it be that God actually hardwired an emotional intelligence into women because they are literally responsible for bringing all the new humans into the world? Could it be that they need to be naturally intuitive and nurturing, with sharp instincts designed toward the survival and flourishing of individuals? Instead of viewing this as a weakness to be overcome, I praise God for the beauty of his diverse creation.”
“The fruit wasn’t something good that was being withheld but something incredibly destructive that God was protecting Adam and Eve from.”
“Satan wants us to view God’s commands as barriers that keep us from enjoying the things we are entitled to. In reality, God is protecting us from what will harm us.”
“Already we can see the precious value assigned to women from their creation. From the language used to describe God’s divine activity to the man’s response and the woman’s role, the Bible ascribes a value to woman that was unique in the ancient world.”
“Sometimes I think we humans tend to downplay our own sinfulness, not realizing how much our sin is an affront to a holy God.”
Books She References
Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies by Hillary Morgan Ferrer
Live Not by Lies by Rod Dreher
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity- and Why This Harms Everybody by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay
The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff (on my TBR)
Other Relevant Books:
The Intolerance of Tolerance by D.A. Carson (discusses the changing definition of tolerance)
The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims by Rebecca McLaughlin (discusses the ‘love is love’ sentiment)
You Who?: Why You Matter and How to Deal With It by Rachel Jankovic (a book basically in response to Girl, Wash Your Face and one of my favorites)
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“When did winning become something I needed in order to survive? Something I did not enjoy having, so much as panic without?”
This was a surprisingly engaging book considering it’s pretty much just about tennis.
I shouldn’t say that, though, because my favorite part of the book was the development of the father/daughter relationship.
‘Carrie Soto Is Back’ is the story of Carrie’s tennis journey from rookie, to challenger, to champion, to comeback.
Does she have what it takes— physically, emotionally, and mentally— to be the best? And if she can’t— can she live with that version of herself?
This book will make you want to watch tennis. And marvel at Serena Williams who is one of the best to play tennis— she holds the most Grand Slam titles right now at 23. She holds a combined 39 major titles. She was ranked number one in the world for 319 weeks. Her and her sister, Venus, ushered in a new era of power to women’s tennis. She retired in 2022 at the age of 40.
Once you read the book, these numbers will start to mean a lot more. It would seem Carrie Soto’s character may even be loosely based on Serena, at least in skill and achievements. The timeline is a little off, though, as Serena didn’t go professional until 1995 and that’s when Soto’s comeback begins.
Either way, I enjoyed this book and it was a different kind of book than I’ve read— focused on sports.
I thought it would get repetitive describing match after match. But the author did a good job of summarizing events by inserting short transcripts of sportscasters rehashing tournaments in between chapters.
It was a good balance between the actual playing of tennis and the character relationships in between.
Plot Summary
Carrie Soto was a child prodigy in tennis, having been coached by her dad, Javier, since she was two. In all her years of playing, she broke many records and changed the game of tennis for women.
But an injury led to her retirement from the game.
Until…
…her record for most Grand Slam wins was tied by an up-and-coming tennis player.
Since being the best has been her life goal and achievement, she is compelled to come out of retirement and take her title back.
Her agent asks her if she is confident that this is the right move. She replies: “It is the only move. I cannot conceive of any other future.”
But Carrie is 37 years old— old for this sport. Not to mention, ‘The Battle Axe’ and ‘Cold-Hearted Carrie’ was never a crowd favorite. She knows there are many who would love to see her fail.
“No matter how good I was on the court, I was never good enough for the public.”
She accepts the challenge and trains vigorously. She has four opportunities to get the win she needs. She refuses to accept any other outcome.
Father and Daughter
Carrie’s dad, Javier, is my favorite part of this book.
Sure, he probably pushed too hard when Carrie was little and sent her the message that winning was the most important thing and what determined her value, but that was during a time he was grieving the loss of his wife— Carrie’s mom.
And the time he spent with Carrie meant so much to her:
“The time I got to spend with my father felt like a gift that other kids didn’t get. Unlike them, my time had purpose; my father and I were working toward something of meaning. I was going to be the best.”
Yes, that’s not the model picture of what that relationship should look like, but it is a reminder that the time we spend with our kids is more meaningful than we realize. To do things together, to learn, to teach, to focus on them, is a special thing for a kid to have with a parent. Attention.
Over the years, he has wizened. He sees Carrie’s ambition and what it has cost her.
He is just the sweetest dad and he’s funny, too. He is Carrie’s biggest fan, and more than his desire for her to win, he wants her to open her heart. To realize there is more to life than tennis and winning.
They had a fallout at the peak of Carrie’s career leading her to basically fire her dad as coach and be coached by someone else. They became estranged.
“If you would like to coach someone who is fine being second, go coach someone else.”
This comeback season has brought them back together and her father is overjoyed to spend time with his daughter, playing tennis, and being part of her life again.
Personally, I didn’t really like Carrie’s character. She is brash and mean— although I have to admit, it was sometimes satisfying to hear her say the comebacks we all just think and don’t say. That’s probably just my own bad sportsmanship feeling that solidarity, but it’s true so.
Also Carrie is hardened to love.
After all, “Love means nothing.” (Pun!)
But to see the way Javier still stands with her, gently trying to guide her, but pulling back when necessary to maintain the relationship, is super sweet.
Really I think this story is more about him than her. He has been in the story from the beginning. He was the coach, her sole care-taker. He has taught her everything she knows— about tennis, about life, about love. He has always been her rock.
This is the story of Javier’s relationship with his daughter from start to finish. The influence and legacy of a dad who loves his little girl.
Fame and Ambition
Another thread woven into this story is the pressure of the position of fame. Being in the spotlight. Having expectations put on you.
At one point Carrie compares herself to another woman: “Maybe her life looked nothing like mine. Maybe she lived free from all this pressure, this sense that she lived or died by how good she was at something. Was she burdened by the need to win everything she did? Or did she live for nothing?”
There is this tension with Carrie.
Winning and being the best is all she has ever known. Especially because she was capable to achieve greatness. She tasted it. And she was determined enough to do whatever she had to to stay there.
But we can see what that has cost her. Relationships. Love.
She is driven by her ambition and lives off the thrill of it, yet she feels the pressure of achieving and the fickleness of fame. As soon as you can’t be who the people want you to be, they’re done with you. Then what are you?
When our identity is wrapped up in our achievements we are destined to despair for there will always be someone better. Records are broken. Bodies deteriorate. We have to be more than what we can do.
Carrie is running on the beach and sees kids building a sandcastle. She thinks, “I wonder why anyone would want to build anything out of sand, when tomorrow it will be gone, and you’d have nothing to show for your day.”
This mindset is an interesting thing to ponder. Because we think this way too a lot of times. What is the point of this or that if I don’t have something tangible to show for it?
Of course, as the Bible says, we should not build our house on sand, but in this scenario I think what’s lost in Carrie rejecting something out of sand is she has lost joy. She is afraid to create something that won’t last forever. She is blind to the learning that happens and just the beauty of creating.
She can’t just enjoy the activity and the brief sense of accomplishment. Instead of the wave washing it away being a normal tide of life, she sees it as failure.
But what if some things in our life are meant to be sand— shaped, refined, reconstructed?
Random Comments
Gotta give a shout out to the 90s references in this book (is that the primary reason for its historical fiction designation?): Doc Martens, home phones, fax machines, 3 Ninjas Knuckle Up…
There was quite a bit of Spanish in this book that wasn’t always translated. My meager Spanish memories from high school and college helped me figure out most of it, but you may need to Google translate some parts if you’re not fluent.
After I read that Carrie’s mother died when she was young I thought the book would be more about her coming to terms with not having a mom or thinking about what her mother would say or think about this or that. But really her mom was not that much a part of the story. It was her relationship with her dad that meant the most to her. Somehow it’s not surprising but still unexpected that the book turned out that way.
Like the last three books I’ve read the characters have been chess players. I’m seeing a pattern of greatness and success being associated with chess and now I’m questioning my entire childhood which is devoid of this game.
[Enter: controversial rabbit trail]
It’s interesting reading this book during the NCAA Women’s March Madness tournament. I’m adding this in here for posterity, but the championship just happened between LSU and Iowa. Angel Reese vs Caitlin Clark. The biggest controversy after the game was the sportsmanship between both players and what was acceptable and what was not.
Reading about Carrie Soto’s character, she has the swagger of an athlete who knows they are good. Her trash talk is bold and public.
Reese and Caitlin (especially Caitlin) are arguably the best female basketball players right now. I think athletes, especially at a professional level, should be allowed a certain amount of confidence and swagger— it’s part of the competition, the intimidation, the strategy of getting in your opponent’s head to try and beat them.
But there is a limit. I think Carrie Soto crossed the line in a lot of ways. And I think Angel Reese did too. (I probably should have left that as a vague reference, but I like to share my opinion so I’ll just say that what makes Reese’s gesture different than Caitlin’s was that it occurred AFTER the game was over, after they won by a decent amount of points, and she basically chased her around the court to get her attention.)
But ANYWAY, I think it’s interesting how it is harder for us to accept women showing that confident swagger than men. Probably because we’re used to associating women with quiet, nurturing? I don’t know.
Personally, I am super competitive and I’m a bad loser. So I can’t really say I’ve taken the high ground on much in terms of sports and I would for sure not win any ‘good sportsmanship’ award.
Basically, reading this during the NCAA controversy was an interesting mind experience.
Recommendation
The main reason I would give for NOT reading this book would be if you don’t like to read books with a lot of language. One of Carrie’s favorite phrases is to tell people to ‘Kindly F-off.’ She uses the f-word quite frequently.
I’m not a fan of swearing in the books I read, but for some reason it felt a little different in this book because it did feel like part of Carrie’s persona.
But if you can handle the swearing, I don’t see any other reason not to read it. It was an engaging read with a nice familial relationship thread.
If you like tennis or sports or winning— you’ll definitely like it, but you may feel a little attacked if your life song is DJ Khalid’s ‘All I Do is Win.’
I like sports, but if you’re apprehensive about reading a sports-related book, I’ve seen many reviewers who loved the book even though they were anti-sports.
[Content Advisory: probably at least 50-60+ f- and s-words; no sexual content]
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
This was a surprisingly engaging book considering it’s pretty much just about tennis.
I shouldn’t say that, though, because my favorite part of the book was the development of the father/daughter relationship.
‘Carrie Soto Is Back’ is the story of Carrie’s tennis journey from rookie, to challenger, to champion, to comeback.
Does she have what it takes— physically, emotionally, and mentally— to be the best? And if she can’t— can she live with that version of herself?
This book will make you want to watch tennis. And marvel at Serena Williams who is one of the best to play tennis— she holds the most Grand Slam titles right now at 23. She holds a combined 39 major titles. She was ranked number one in the world for 319 weeks. Her and her sister, Venus, ushered in a new era of power to women’s tennis. She retired in 2022 at the age of 40.
Once you read the book, these numbers will start to mean a lot more. It would seem Carrie Soto’s character may even be loosely based on Serena, at least in skill and achievements. The timeline is a little off, though, as Serena didn’t go professional until 1995 and that’s when Soto’s comeback begins.
Either way, I enjoyed this book and it was a different kind of book than I’ve read— focused on sports.
I thought it would get repetitive describing match after match. But the author did a good job of summarizing events by inserting short transcripts of sportscasters rehashing tournaments in between chapters.
It was a good balance between the actual playing of tennis and the character relationships in between.
Plot Summary
Carrie Soto was a child prodigy in tennis, having been coached by her dad, Javier, since she was two. In all her years of playing, she broke many records and changed the game of tennis for women.
But an injury led to her retirement from the game.
Until…
…her record for most Grand Slam wins was tied by an up-and-coming tennis player.
Since being the best has been her life goal and achievement, she is compelled to come out of retirement and take her title back.
Her agent asks her if she is confident that this is the right move. She replies: “It is the only move. I cannot conceive of any other future.”
But Carrie is 37 years old— old for this sport. Not to mention, ‘The Battle Axe’ and ‘Cold-Hearted Carrie’ was never a crowd favorite. She knows there are many who would love to see her fail.
“No matter how good I was on the court, I was never good enough for the public.”
She accepts the challenge and trains vigorously. She has four opportunities to get the win she needs. She refuses to accept any other outcome.
Father and Daughter
Carrie’s dad, Javier, is my favorite part of this book.
Sure, he probably pushed too hard when Carrie was little and sent her the message that winning was the most important thing and what determined her value, but that was during a time he was grieving the loss of his wife— Carrie’s mom.
And the time he spent with Carrie meant so much to her:
“The time I got to spend with my father felt like a gift that other kids didn’t get. Unlike them, my time had purpose; my father and I were working toward something of meaning. I was going to be the best.”
Yes, that’s not the model picture of what that relationship should look like, but it is a reminder that the time we spend with our kids is more meaningful than we realize. To do things together, to learn, to teach, to focus on them, is a special thing for a kid to have with a parent. Attention.
Over the years, he has wizened. He sees Carrie’s ambition and what it has cost her.
He is just the sweetest dad and he’s funny, too. He is Carrie’s biggest fan, and more than his desire for her to win, he wants her to open her heart. To realize there is more to life than tennis and winning.
They had a fallout at the peak of Carrie’s career leading her to basically fire her dad as coach and be coached by someone else. They became estranged.
“If you would like to coach someone who is fine being second, go coach someone else.”
This comeback season has brought them back together and her father is overjoyed to spend time with his daughter, playing tennis, and being part of her life again.
Personally, I didn’t really like Carrie’s character. She is brash and mean— although I have to admit, it was sometimes satisfying to hear her say the comebacks we all just think and don’t say. That’s probably just my own bad sportsmanship feeling that solidarity, but it’s true so.
Also Carrie is hardened to love.
After all, “Love means nothing.” (Pun!)
But to see the way Javier still stands with her, gently trying to guide her, but pulling back when necessary to maintain the relationship, is super sweet.
Really I think this story is more about him than her. He has been in the story from the beginning. He was the coach, her sole care-taker. He has taught her everything she knows— about tennis, about life, about love. He has always been her rock.
This is the story of Javier’s relationship with his daughter from start to finish. The influence and legacy of a dad who loves his little girl.
Fame and Ambition
Another thread woven into this story is the pressure of the position of fame. Being in the spotlight. Having expectations put on you.
At one point Carrie compares herself to another woman: “Maybe her life looked nothing like mine. Maybe she lived free from all this pressure, this sense that she lived or died by how good she was at something. Was she burdened by the need to win everything she did? Or did she live for nothing?”
There is this tension with Carrie.
Winning and being the best is all she has ever known. Especially because she was capable to achieve greatness. She tasted it. And she was determined enough to do whatever she had to to stay there.
But we can see what that has cost her. Relationships. Love.
She is driven by her ambition and lives off the thrill of it, yet she feels the pressure of achieving and the fickleness of fame. As soon as you can’t be who the people want you to be, they’re done with you. Then what are you?
When our identity is wrapped up in our achievements we are destined to despair for there will always be someone better. Records are broken. Bodies deteriorate. We have to be more than what we can do.
Carrie is running on the beach and sees kids building a sandcastle. She thinks, “I wonder why anyone would want to build anything out of sand, when tomorrow it will be gone, and you’d have nothing to show for your day.”
This mindset is an interesting thing to ponder. Because we think this way too a lot of times. What is the point of this or that if I don’t have something tangible to show for it?
Of course, as the Bible says, we should not build our house on sand, but in this scenario I think what’s lost in Carrie rejecting something out of sand is she has lost joy. She is afraid to create something that won’t last forever. She is blind to the learning that happens and just the beauty of creating.
She can’t just enjoy the activity and the brief sense of accomplishment. Instead of the wave washing it away being a normal tide of life, she sees it as failure.
But what if some things in our life are meant to be sand— shaped, refined, reconstructed?
Random Comments
Gotta give a shout out to the 90s references in this book (is that the primary reason for its historical fiction designation?): Doc Martens, home phones, fax machines, 3 Ninjas Knuckle Up…
There was quite a bit of Spanish in this book that wasn’t always translated. My meager Spanish memories from high school and college helped me figure out most of it, but you may need to Google translate some parts if you’re not fluent.
After I read that Carrie’s mother died when she was young I thought the book would be more about her coming to terms with not having a mom or thinking about what her mother would say or think about this or that. But really her mom was not that much a part of the story. It was her relationship with her dad that meant the most to her. Somehow it’s not surprising but still unexpected that the book turned out that way.
Like the last three books I’ve read the characters have been chess players. I’m seeing a pattern of greatness and success being associated with chess and now I’m questioning my entire childhood which is devoid of this game.
[Enter: controversial rabbit trail]
It’s interesting reading this book during the NCAA Women’s March Madness tournament. I’m adding this in here for posterity, but the championship just happened between LSU and Iowa. Angel Reese vs Caitlin Clark. The biggest controversy after the game was the sportsmanship between both players and what was acceptable and what was not.
Reading about Carrie Soto’s character, she has the swagger of an athlete who knows they are good. Her trash talk is bold and public.
Reese and Caitlin (especially Caitlin) are arguably the best female basketball players right now. I think athletes, especially at a professional level, should be allowed a certain amount of confidence and swagger— it’s part of the competition, the intimidation, the strategy of getting in your opponent’s head to try and beat them.
But there is a limit. I think Carrie Soto crossed the line in a lot of ways. And I think Angel Reese did too. (I probably should have left that as a vague reference, but I like to share my opinion so I’ll just say that what makes Reese’s gesture different than Caitlin’s was that it occurred AFTER the game was over, after they won by a decent amount of points, and she basically chased her around the court to get her attention.)
But ANYWAY, I think it’s interesting how it is harder for us to accept women showing that confident swagger than men. Probably because we’re used to associating women with quiet, nurturing? I don’t know.
Personally, I am super competitive and I’m a bad loser. So I can’t really say I’ve taken the high ground on much in terms of sports and I would for sure not win any ‘good sportsmanship’ award.
Basically, reading this during the NCAA controversy was an interesting mind experience.
Recommendation
The main reason I would give for NOT reading this book would be if you don’t like to read books with a lot of language. One of Carrie’s favorite phrases is to tell people to ‘Kindly F-off.’ She uses the f-word quite frequently.
I’m not a fan of swearing in the books I read, but for some reason it felt a little different in this book because it did feel like part of Carrie’s persona.
But if you can handle the swearing, I don’t see any other reason not to read it. It was an engaging read with a nice familial relationship thread.
If you like tennis or sports or winning— you’ll definitely like it, but you may feel a little attacked if your life song is DJ Khalid’s ‘All I Do is Win.’
I like sports, but if you’re apprehensive about reading a sports-related book, I’ve seen many reviewers who loved the book even though they were anti-sports.
[Content Advisory: probably at least 50-60+ f- and s-words; no sexual content]
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest