Christmas Reading 2012

Wait... I have this blog too?! Whoa...

So, I haven't written here for the last couple of years because I've been working on my classic lit blogs, but I am aware that I have it. Usually, though, the writing on those blogs keeps me too busy to write here.

I do write, however, because there are a number of people who want to read what I'm posting here, so I leave it for their perusal.

___________________________________________

Every year for Christmas, my family starts by a reading of the Christmas story. Over the past several years, we've gotten a bit less "traditional" - by which I mean that we have expanded our Scripture readings beyond the second chapters of Luke and Matthew. We've done John 1, Isaiah 60, etc.

This year, my father suggested I find a reading for Christmas - something that included the same great story, but was more devotional and provided some kind of perspective. I peeked around the Internet and read some decent ones... but none that really resonated with me. So, I wrote my own. And here it is...

Seeking the Christ of Christmas in His Gospels
by Stephen E. Foxworthy

 
All Scripture readings are taken from the New Revised Standard Version.

Nowhere do the gospels disagree more than on the subject of Christ’s birth. While the stories of His ministry, death, and resurrection – minor discrepancies aside – remain largely the same, the subject of His birth differs from gospel writer to gospel writer. What differences exist and what do those differences tell us about the Christ of Christmas?

The Gospel of Mark was the first of the four to be written. It is simple, concise, and the blueprint for what a gospel should be. Both Matthew and Luke use his model to directly influence their own. However, nowhere in Mark’s gospel is any account of Christ’s birth or genealogy overtly mentioned or alluded to. For Mark, how Christ came into the world is seemingly not as important as the fact that He did come into the world. In Mark’s account, the ministry of Christ is the key.

Matthew’s account of Christ’s birth, however, was the first canonical version recorded. Matthew tells of stars and traveling wise men and vengeful monarchs, creating a tale of intrigue and suspense. Wise rulers from a distant land somewhere in the east, upon seeing a prophesied star, embark to Bethlehem in order to witness the coming of a “King of the Jews” in order “to pay him homage” (Matt. 2:2). Upon finding Christ’s birthplace, they present the child with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, gifts fit for any reigning monarch.

But by asking for a “king,” these distant princes awaken the paranoid fears of Palestine’s reigning “client king,” Herod the Great, who by the end of his life was ever fearful of someone usurping his throne. After his plot to find the child through the wise men proved fruitless, he decreed that all infants under two be killed to prevent any from potentially growing up to overthrow him. But God was with His Son, delivering Jesus and His parents to Egypt, where they remained until the threat from Herod the Great was finally over.

Matthew uses nobility and royalty in his account of Christ’s birth that is conspicuously lacking in all others. For Matthew, the birth of Christ is the birth of the King of all kings. Not only is His birth recognized by foreign rulers, but by the reigning monarch of Palestine as well, himself a Gentile. A quick look at Matthew’s genealogy in chapter 1 cements this idea of Christ as king by tracing Jesus’ lineage through all the kings of Judah from David all the way down to Jehoiakim. In fact, by tracing His genealogy through David, Matthew alludes to an Old Testament prophecy that his Jewish audience would be sure to understand: “…I will raise up your offspring after you… and will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me” (2 Sam. 7:12-14).

Luke’s gospel, on the other hand, takes a very different tack and, in doing so, becomes the definitive version of the Christmas story. In it, Jesus’s parents are in Bethlehem for a census of the Roman world instituted by Caesar Augustus who, as the adopted son of Julius Caesar, considered himself the son of a god. Though Jesus’ mother, Mary, was “expecting a child” (Luke 2:5), no room could be found for them in any inn in town, so they were relegated to a nearby stable so that she could give birth away from the elements. When He at last entered the world, Jesus was wrapped in “bands of cloth and laid… in a manger” (Luke 2:7).

At that moment, Luke cuts to some common shepherds attending their flocks at night. These shepherds were simple men, likely watching the flocks of wealthier men to ensure that no predators would lay hand, paw, or fang on them. They were amazed, however, when an angel appears suddenly in a burst of brilliant light above their heads, proclaiming the birth of “a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord” (Luke 2:11). Other angels quickly join them and sing together, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors!” (Luke 2:14).

After the angelic visitors vanished just as quickly as they had appeared, the shepherds rush into Bethlehem, abandoning their flocks in order to see if what the angels had told them was correct… and behold! Once they arrived, they witnessed the child lying in the manger, wrapped in cloth, just as the angel had told them. After seeing the child, they rushed out again, in order to proclaim His birth to anyone and everyone who would hear them, becoming – in essence – among the first proclaimers of the Gospel.

Gone are the royal trappings of Matthew’s gospel. Gone are the vengeful kings, the reverent princes, and the prophetic celestial orbs. Luke eschews these things in order to present a simpler, more humble origin for the Christ. Nowhere in his Christmas story does Matthew mention shepherds or mangers or angels… these are not a part of what he is trying to do. In making a move toward simplicity, however, Luke shows us the universality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He did not come simply for the regal or the high-born – He did not even come only for the Jews! – but for the lowly, the simple, the common, and the ordinary. While the angelic messengers are certain to tell us that Christ’s birth is nothing short of divine, their audience lets us know that the message of Christ is for all… and even goes so far as to give us a clue as to how we ought to respond to such a message!

And then, there’s John. Of all the gospels, John’s is the most different. Unlike Matthew and Luke before him, he abandons the blueprint of Mark’s gospel for what is widely regarded as a more theological text, filled with symbolism and mystery. Like Mark’s gospel, however, John seemingly avoids the story of Christ’s birth, instead filling his first chapter with language of origins and Words and light and darkness. And yet, taking a closer look, we see that this chapter is, in so many ways, the story of Christmas after all.

Rather than beginning on a spring night in Bethlehem, John starts at the beginning of time itself, starting as the Book of Genesis does: “In the beginning…” Instead of introducing foreign magi, spiteful rulers, and lowly shepherds, John introduces us the “the Word” who “was with God, and… was God” (Jn. 1:1), claiming that this Word was “life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not overcome it” (Jn. 1:4-5).

John speaks of Christ’s incarnation, that God Himself took on flesh in order to dwell among mankind. Unlike Matthew and Luke before him, John is not merely content to think of Christ in human terms – even terms so great as those of a king. Instead, John insists on highlighting Christ’s divinity, His unity with God the Father. “Do you not believe,” He asks His disciples before His death, “that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (Jn. 14:10-11).

As such, John 1 is the story of Christmas – the story of God taking on mortal flesh in order to redeem mankind. To quote the apostle Paul, “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And, being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:5-8).

So… what do the gospel writers teach us about the Christ of Christmas? How do we justify the differences between their various stories? In Matthew, we see a Christ born regal, recognized as kings by some of the most prominent rulers of His day, either in celebration or aggression. In Luke, we see a simpler origin, a boy born into poverty, attended by shepherds in a stable, who would grow to be the Savior of mankind. In John, we see God Himself, reaching down to bless mankind with His presence, emptying Himself in order to know our pain and to be our redemption. And, finally, we come to Mark. In Mark, we realize that the story of Christmas is not an end, but a beginning. Any talk of Christmas must take into account why this Christ came – He came to suffer, to die, and ultimately to redeem mankind. This is the Christ of Christmas. May we be like the wise men, always seeking Him. May we be like the shepherds, constantly proclaiming the Good News of His arrival. May we be like Christ, who Himself showed us what life truly means.

"Great Common Truths"

This entry is taken from an entry in my commonplace book from December 28th of last year. The quote, as I recall, was cited in the Introduction to Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace which I was preparing to read.

"Great common truths are disclosed to man only when he is alone; they are the revelations made by solitude in the thick of collective action."

- Rachel Bespaloff, On the Iliad 

Can truth really be a singular event? I'm not discounting the importance and, often, necessity of solitude - indeed, even Christ needed to withdraw from the masses and even from those closest to him in order to gain focus and perspective. Also, history is full of men whose solitary revelations (and the accompanying texts those revelations have spawned and inspired) which have moved men of varying times and places to seek the truth in something greater (and beyond) themselves:

• Siddhartha Gautama (a.k.a. the Buddha) and his Eightfold Path and Four Noble Truths
• Lao Tzu and his Tao te Ching (lit. 'The Way and Its Power')
• Mohammed and the Qu'ran
• Moses and the Judeo-Christian (i.e. Old Testament) Law (including, but hardly limited to, the Ten Commandments)

All of these men withdrew to solitude - away from the eyes of accountability - and returned with "great common truths" that have shaped the destinies of millions.

All this begs the questions: Does their lack of accountability in any way diminish the validity of their truth? If we subscribe to a view of truth as absolute, we must answer that question in the negative - because truth is true by its own nature. When those truth begin to conflict, then - as they will, as many "great common truths" tend to become influenced by time, place, and culture - how is the Christian (or, indeed, any discerning thinker) to distinguish one from the other?

Perhaps the Apostle Paul provides the best advice in the final words of his first missive to the Church at Thessalonica: "...do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil" (1 Thess. 5:20-22; NASB).

Mankind is blessed uniquely amid Creation with the gift of reason. Why, then, would God simply ask us to ignore this fundamental part/aspect of who we are and who we are created to be. We must discern, using that ever-important faculty of reason, "that which is good" regarding those "great common truths."

I believe that truth is absolute, but I also believe that it can be "lost in translation," so to speak. One notices, when he or she take the time and effort to study, that there are many truly common truths shared by all religions - variations on the Golden Rule, the condemnation of murder, thievery, violence, etc. - but there is also divergence as well - fundamental differences which result in division.

It is at this point of divergence where the faculties of reason become so essential. It is here where the responsible and discerning thinker must begin to "test everything." Still, even the most discerning and most responsible thinkers will come to differences in opinion. Like those "lost in translation" truths, reason is often colored (though not always marred) by time, place, and culture, by circumstances like upbringing and socio-economic and political backgrounds.

Do differing reactions to these truths as a result of our reason point us to a conclusion that leads us to believe that reason is, on its own, no basis for discernment? Yes and no. No, in that reason is our God-given gift for testing the truths presented to ascertain their validity. Yes, in that human reason, by virtue of the fact that it is human, is - like humanity itself - deeply flawed. On its own, it accomplishes very little. However, reason coupled with faith - that "evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1, NKJV) - becomes our true litmus test. To determine truth (and especially to determine it in our own solitude), we must consult the Author of Truth and, only then, can we truly "hold fast to that which is good."

Obsessed With Orson

Every January, the high school where I teach has what we call J-Term. A lot of colleges have these, but very few high schools. Our J-Term is a two-week period where teachers are able to teach (and students are able to take) classes that break out of the 'norm' of a traditional class during the school year. My colleagues have been drawn to classes both within and outside of their designated content areas - teaching classes on the Beatles, opera, presidential assassinations, and a wide variety of authors ranging from Hans Christian Andersen to Edgar Allen Poe, from Robert Louis Stevenson to Agatha Christie. Some of them have taught the same class for years, fine-tuning it into a well-oiled machine; others have never taught the same class twice, picking up new information to add to their educational repertoire.

As for myself, I have taught three J-Terms at this point, none of them really in my content area, but based on interests of my own. I've taught an acting class (which, I learned the hard way, cannot be done in two weeks - thankfully, they've let me expand it out to a one semester class), a comic book class (focusing on both the literature and history of the graphic medium), and a class on world mythology (not merely being content to focus on Greco-Roman or Norse mythology). Obviously, I tend to fall into the 'no-repeats' camp.

This year, I've decided to teach a class on the life and art of Orson Welles, simply called "The Art of Welles." (I happened to think this title a clever play on Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," but I'm not anticipating many kids being able to 'get' that.) Here's the course description I had to type up: "In the history of American entertainment, few names stand as tall or as proud as Orson Welles. A visionary talent and self-proclaimed genius, Welles mastered the worlds of theater, radio, television, and film over the course of his fifty-year career. This class will discuss the oeuvre of Welles, paying special attention to his triumphs (Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, The Third Man), his failures (including unfinished productions of Don Quixote and The Other Side of the Wind), and his controversies (like those surrounding Citizen Kane and his immortal 'War of the Worlds' broadcast), noting how these play a role in the life of the artist."

Since I lit upon the prospect of this class, I've been excitedly hunting for Welles biographies, trying to learn as much as possible about this fascinating figure. I've gathered two biographies that are relatively short and sweet (one, written by Ben Walters for the British "Life & Times" series, covers the first 35 years of his life in a scant 90 pages, while the other, written by F.X. Feeney for Taschen Publishing, is mainly a lot of pictures with captions in three languages), so I'm looking for something with a bit more substance. I'm thinking about This is Orson Welles by Peter Bogdanovich for the class text. Anyone have any recommendations for some supplementary material?

Welles is a truly fascinating figure to me, a very ironic and vivid picture of art imitating life. From wunderkind to pariah in only a few short years, his own rise and fall closely mirrors those of the characters he was so fond of playing - from the classics of Shakespeare, like Macbeth or King Lear, to the characters he created himself, like Charles Foster Kane or Gregory Arkadin. His greatest downfall, like these great characters themselves, was his own ego, his own self-conceived genius, fed into by hubris. True, he was a brilliant artist... but what are the limits of the artist? What is his overall role? When does he need to take control and when does he need to step back?

I, for one, truly look forward to asking and answering these questions between now and January. I also look forward to immersing myself in Welles' films and radio plays - a lot of which I have yet to experience. Mostly, I look forward to showing these things to students who may never have experienced them before! It's going to be a lot of fun... and I just can't wait to get started!

When Stephen Met "When Eddie Met Salad" - A Restaurant Review

The California Roll Salad at When Eddie Met Salad

In the never-ending quest to never make my blog (a.) a consistently updated look at my ghastly inner workings and (b.) about any one thing in particular (which I suppose, works hand-in-hand with that consistency issue), I have decided to add another layer to my already scattered repertoire of varying blog hats - restaurant critic! I'm fairly critical (though not always intentionally) and I love food, so this was bound to happen sooner or later.

Today, while out with Mom and Emilee (my sister) on our bi-weekly trip to the Castleton Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, we stopped by a nice little gem of a strip mall restaurant that had caught our eye on our previous excursion - When Eddie Met Salad.

Really, in the interest of being honest, it was the name that caught our attention first. Emilee and I liked that it reminded us of one chick flick we both actually enjoy (When Harry Met Sally, natch) and Mom liked that it had 'Eddie' in it (as that's her husband's/our father's name). As the three of us have been fairly interested in eating healthy lately as well, a restaurant that specializes in various types of salads seemed right up our alley. So the two of them decided (independently of me, because - let's face it - I'll pretty much eat anything) that we would stop there for lunch today.

We walked in just after 11am, which is when the store opens. In all probability, we were the first customers of the day. The interior of the store was filled with small tables in chairs and the sparse decor led me to believe that this place was all about the food.

As near as I can figure, When Eddie Met Salad (hereafter referred to as WEMS) attempts to do what Panera did for sandwiches or Noodles & Co. did for... well, noodle dishes - update them a bit and give them a new, creative spin. If creativity was what what the titular 'Eddie' had in mind, then mission accomplished! What I found after looking at the massive order board were a number of wild choices, each more creative and original than the last!

The menu includes not only classic salads like a Caesar and Cobb salad, but also features saladized (it's a word now - I made it one) versions of international dishes like Chicken Cordon Bleu (a chicken salad with ham, tomatoes, croutons, mozzarella, and honey mustard dressing), Philly Cheesesteak (Iceberg with roast beef, mushrooms, onions, peppers, mozzarella, croutons, and Italian dressing), and - my eventual pick - a California roll (with imitation crab, diced cucumbers, fresh avacado, black sesame seeds, and a wasabi ranch dressing). Check out their full menu on their website: some of these combos have to be seen (and tasted) to be believed!

I truly enjoyed the California Roll salad. My love for sushi (and my desire around 11am for Japanese food) led me to this salad and I was not disappointed. The lettuce (Eddie's own 'house mix' which, unless I'm mistaken, included iceberg and romaine lettuces) serves as the base of this salad - natch - and takes the place of the vinegared rice in the traditional sushi version of a California roll. The lettuce and the diced cucumber provide a nice textural contrast from the 'soft' ingredients like the crab and the avacado (which was cut into right before my very eyes - huzzah! Freshness!).

The real star of this dish, though, was the wasabi ranch dressing. It packs all the punch of the wasabi you know and love from a sushi restaurant with the cooling consistency of ranch dressing. It was a delight! My one complaint is that there was a LOT of it! Eventually, it became so overwhelming that I could no longer taste the fresh ingredients for all the eye-watering wasabi. (Note to self: Next time, dressing on the SIDE!)

My mother ordered the Cranberry Spinach Salad (romaine and spinach with dried cranberries, slivered almonds, black sesame seeds, feta cheese, and a (balsamic?) vinaigrette. She also really enjoyed her salad, siting her love of the cranberry-feta combo that occurs. (Mom's a bit of a sucker for either feta or a berry-cheese combo. She's cool like that.)

Emilee took advantage of one of the cooler options that a place like WEMS had to offer - a build-your-own salad. Literally one-fourth of the menu is covered with a listing of option so great that the mind reels a bit at first glance. However, she sorted through it like a champ, opting for a house mix salad with avacado, red onions, and cucumber with a chipotle ranch dressing (which may or may not have included bacon - neither of us could tell).

Another thing that made me (or probably Mom, since she bought lunch) happy was the price. For the amount of food you get, the prices at WEMS were very reasonable - anywhere from $4.99 to $6.59 for a small salad (which, themselves, are pretty large) and from $5.99 to $7.59 for a regular salad. I, a man of healthy appetites, ordered the regular-sized California Roll Salad and was MORE than sated by the end of the meal.

WEMS also has wraps and sandwiches for those who prefer typical 'eating out' fare (each priced at $6.59), but make no mistake - the salads are king here!

The general consensus at the table was positive. Emilee enjoyed the freedom to choose her ingredients and lamented that there wasn't a location closer to where we live (on Indy's south side - Are you reading this, Eddie? Untapped markets in Greenwood!) I loved the brazen creativity of the menu and Mom, as stated earlier, loved the slavor profiles on her salad.

Mom did comment - and I was inclined to agree - that the greens didn't seem that fresh. I'm not sure if it was the way it was cut, but the greens seemed like they came out of a bag. I hope this wasn't the case and it didn't really hamper my enjoyment of the meal, but I like to see fresh veggies used whenever possible.

So... to recap:

The Good: creative menu; well-balanced food options; variety; build-your-own salad; well-priced

The Bad: atmosphere (a bit blase from what I could tell); freshness of greens?

Total Rating: Four out of five stars

Recommendation: WEMS has four locations throughout the area - 96th St, Carmel, Downtown, and 86th & Michigan - so check one out and see how good this stuff is for yourself!

Have a local restaurant - not a chain, but a good homegrown kinda place - you wanna see me review? Shoot me an e-mail at sfoxwort@gmail.com!

Wins for the Weekend

Some little 'wins' that helped make this weekend a memorable one for me:

• Read the entirety of Warren Ellis and John Cassaday's Planetary graphic novel series this weekend. I first started reading the series in high school and the final issue (#27) came out last fall (it was on an indefinite hiatus for about three years and came out at best sporadically after that).
  
  It had always been one of those books I really loved reading - it captured the imagination and filled you with a spirit of wonder - but it wasn't until this weekend when I put them all together and read them one after another that I realized just how... breathtaking the whole presented image really was. How seemless the story became. If you read one comics series (not including limited runs like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns), read Planetary - there really is something for everyone in there!
  
Here's a link to the cover of Planetary #27, the book's final issue. (Marvel at Cassaday's amazing art!)


• I bought a new car on Thursday - a white 2002 Chevy Malibu - and have been driving it around all weekend. Nothing really epic to report, but it's nice to have a reliable vehicle to get from A to B in. (Illinois friends, this means I'm in for possible roadtrips later this summer.)


• I've taken a summer job at Barnes & Noble (where I worked before becoming a teacher at Covenant) in order to get some extra cash. Last night, I was shelving some books in the bargain section and noted that someone had taken all of the copies of Barack Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" and moved them from their designated section to the bargain section.
  
  This ticks me off for two reasons: (1.) You have political feelings. Awesome. So do I. So does everyone. Airing them out in a forum like Barnes & Noble by doing some lame, childish faux-covert ops move is not only juvenile, it's not going to convince anyone of anything except how dumb you are. (2.) When you put things back in the wrong spot, someone else who is not you has to put them back in the right spot. Sometimes, this person is me. I'm not your mom. Clean up your messes, people!
  
  I probably would have continued to be mad, but when I got to the section they were supposed to be in and got down to put them all away, I found they had been replaced with one solitary copy of this book. I mean, how can you stay mad about that?! Short answer: you can't.
  
• On my way home from work last night, I got an odd phone call from a group of my Illinois friends who decided to call me out of the blue and taunt me. It amused me and made me miss all of them a great deal. Which is why I'm contemplating a trip up there sometime between now and August. 'Cause they're good people.
  
• Today is Father's Day and, in addition to me getting my dad a 'Best of ZZ Top' CD, the whole family went out to Smokey Bones for some barbecue! I'm a big fan of barbecue myself and managed to take down their BBQ Chicken - an entire half-chicken covered in their sweet barbecue sauce. It was very delicious and, if I'm honest, I can say I'm still a little full from the ordeal.
  
• After lunch, I headed out to see a production of "Rabbit Hole" at Spotlight Players. I've done a couple of shows at Spotlight now (with another one on the way in August - tell your friends!) and knew a couple of people affiliated with the production. Brent Wooldridge, the director, was in "Sorry, Wrong Number" with me last summer, then directed me in "Dearly Beloved," and was also in "Insane With Power" with me immediately after that. So I know him well enough to be in trouble if I weren't there. My friend Ericka Barker - whom I met after auditions for "Dearly Beloved" - had managed to snag the lead in this show also, so I had to see her too. I had just seen her about a month or two back in "When You Comin' Back, Red Ryder" and thought she did wonderfully in both shows, pulling off a level of emotional intensity in both productions that I was just astounded by! If this weren't the last day of this production, I'd encourage you all to go see it. Sadly, though, you can't.

Now, I'm gonna go home and eat food. Maybe finish watching season two of "Mad Men". We shall see.

What were some of the highlights of your weekend?