Revelations of a Single Woman: Loving the Life I Didn't Expect, by Connally Gilliam

Why did I read this book and why am I writing about it? After all, I'm not single (anymore). But I was once. And I remember it. And I will honestly say that I'm extremely grateful that I'm not single any longer. But that didn't mean that it was a bad state to be in or that I didn't have fun during that time period. Because I did.

I generally try to be careful about what books I recommend to whom. A simple book recommendation can prove offensive if the "right" conditions are in play. This is one of those dangerous books, mostly because it has a dangerous title. Single women might not want to be caught reading it, or having people know that they have read it. Or sympathize with it. Does that make their avoidance correct? No, I don't think so. Nor is the avoidance of a married woman necessarily valid. Think about it. Most single women spend time reading romance novels (Christian or otherwise) and child rearing books for that "one day" in the future when they might happen to need the advice of any relationship author. So why shouldn't a married woman read a book about being single? It never hurts to refresh one's memory of time's past. It also might help you to understand and/or better relate to a single gal-pal. Maybe not, but this book in particular might help you realize a few things about the culture in relations to singles that perhaps you hadn't realized before.

I realize that the majority of this blog's readership is Christian and perhaps conservatively so. Many singles reading might hold to the courtship standard when it comes to building relationships with the opposite sex. Some have foregone that mindset quite some time ago. Some might have been on match.com (or some other service) while others could care less about marriage right now and are quite content in their single state. Others are dating. Others are married. Everyone is always in a different stage of life. Few of us land on the exact same path at the exact same time. That shouldn't preclude us from attempting to relate and support each other in our different times and seasons. While Gilliam certainly intends this book to be "by a single, for a single" I think her audience should be broader in its general scope. I didn't have any problems reading it (I think it was healthy for me to do so), nor do I have any problems recommending it (obviously).

Frankly, I wasn't sure what to expect when I first started the book. After all - I am married. I'm not sorting through The Trials of The Single Woman anymore. I thought the book would be boring, irritating, or both. Wrong on both counts! Despite the fact that she references and quotes politicians that I loathe, and watches movies I wouldn't go near and happens to like music that I find particularly repulsive, she still had valid points to share. (Aren't I gracious?) So, I can really only review this book in light of past experience and my friends' current experiences. I can only listen to what some single friends have told me and try to make applications where appropriate. And I've decided to be brutally honest in some parts of this review.

Things I particularly appreciated about this book:

1. She's honest. She says she's lonely. She said single life sucks. She feels a void. She wants a home. She admitted that she wishes the title and the content about the book were focused on marital advice and family relationships instead of a book about Aloneness. She still wants to get married (age 37 and waiting). Writing this book didn't cure her of the loneliness or ache she feels in a coupled-up world.

2. She talks about building companionship with both women AND men. She recognizes that women do indeed need men in some form or fashion and life without a man is somewhat different and/or difficult. Her arguments counter attack the feminist movement's "empowering" message of life without males. She also supports having (carefully guarded) friendships with men. So many books on Christian dating/courtship would have the two sexes miles apart at all times -- a ridiculous arrangements, in my opinion -- instead of encouraging healthy friendships. I appreciate Gilliam taking the time to support friendships with the opposite sex instead of making single women feel like even grown men have the cooties.

3. She talks about being a single woman with lots of married friends and the appropriate way to interact with those married women and their husbands. I particularly appreciated this because a. I'm married and b. I have lots of single friends. Some of my single friends switched the way they related to myself and Jonathan automatically and have left me feeling completely comfortable with their friendship towards the both of us. Others have made me feel as if they need to be kept at arm's length as they seem to have no apparent idea of what it means to respect the marriage relationship and, quite frankly, seem to trounce all over us with no regard to how it makes me feel, in particular. Again, I appreciated Gilliam's frankness in discussing both the pain and parting aspects of learning how to relate to friends as a married couple. Yes, it does separate people. Yes, it does require a different level of behavior. But it's healthy and important. For everyone.

What I know and remember about the single life which I could identify and relate to Gilliam's remarks:

1. I was lonely once too. There was something missing and I knew I didn't have it within myself to be whole in this area. I wanted to share my life with someone. I wanted to fall asleep with someone (I never prayed about snoring issues though.) and I wanted to wake up with them. I wanted them to know all about me. (Well, mostly.) And I wanted them to love me for my every fault. (Yes, I expected perfection and a conscious looking past my faults.) I always thought life would be MORE fun with someone to share it with.

2. I wanted to be rescued. I'm not sure I would have consciously related it to "being rescued from singleness" though. I remember telling a close friend every time a particularly bad law school exam was approaching that "I Just Want to Get Married!" If my own Prince Charming would have entered into the picture right before a big exam, a big move, a scary situation then I would have been rescued from whatever particular predicament that I was currently facing. That sounded relieving! In between Big Scary Life Situations though I remember having fun. Still being lonely, yes, and being interested in romance, but generally content with seeing/spending time with friends. Besides, most of my close friends were single too. It's not like I had to bemoan the fact that they were off being married while I wasn't. I wasn't really hurting in that regards.

3. I remember being 16 and telling a friend of mine that I would likely be dating by 18 and married by 20ish. Very close to 20 at any rate. Why? I don't know. Because everyone I knew (at the time) was doing that. So that was What Was Done. What I didn't know at the age of 16 was that I had 10 more years of waiting ahead of me. I realize that everyone is made differently and some feel an inner urge to be married much sooner than others. Some 17 year olds are pining away for The Ultimate Relationship. What I don't think they realize is that there is no Ultimate Relationship to be had at that age. They don't even know who THEY are, let alone have the capabilities of figuring out anyone else. Others begin the pining at 22 or 23. I don't believe I finally gave up on the idea of marriage, really, until 23 or 24. A friend said once to me that "marriage was a book on the shelf" and it wasn't time to pull it out and read yet. I identified with that. It was a distant thought that I knew was a distinct possibility (hoped so at any rate) but that I couldn't base my life decisions on the idea of being married the next day. For a few years there I was definitely single and I was definitely ok with that.I remember making a significant move and having people tell me, "Ooo...maybe you'll meet your husband in X." I told them that wasn't very likely, and I also told my new friends and acquaintances upon arrival that it wasn't very likely. Turns out, I was right. Marriage was still 3 years away from my first big Move Away From Home. (And I'm right glad of it, too, btw!)

But then again - my memory is shaky because singleness is in the past. Now is the future. Here I am, in my late 20's, "newly" married (comparatively speaking) and with our first kid on the way. Several friends of mine (who are younger than me) have been married for 5-6 years and have kids of that age. Some have multiple children. In some respects, I suppose I could be viewed as a late bloomer. For myself, I think I was right on time. (As I joke, I had to wait for my husband, who is younger than me, to grow up and be of marriageable age!) God's timing IS perfect. I could no more rush it as delay it. God put Jonathan and I on the same path, at the same time. It wasn't arranged by us (believe us!) but by Him. Timing was everything.

Gilliam shares a piece of advice that a friend shared with her: "It is better to be single and want to be married, than to be married and want to be single." We all nod our heads. Makes sense in the practical, right? But I'd say that's a deep truth and not one to skim over. I also have old-time friends who are not particularly happy in their marriages. The rate of divorces among Christians are creeping up to be as high as they are in non-Christian marriages. This isn't a little saying which should be quickly overlooked, but carefully considered. I'm very blessed in that by waiting a few years more than I had planned, I ended up in a marriage that leaves me grateful for the companionship - every day - and makes me look forward to our future together, as opposed to wishing for opportunities that the single life held in the past. I have no regrets and there is no second guessing. I'm secure and content. (And did I mention grateful?) If there's a truth that Gilliam shares, and that I'd love for others to realize is that it is better to wait - even if feels like the male in front of you is a great opportunity or if it feels like he may be your last chance. When the question rises in your mind, "Is this my only chance, Lord?" then your immediate response to the guy should be, "Sorry -- ain't gonna work!" There's no need to explore beyond what you know God has in store for you for the sake of a fear.

And what, exactly, does God have in store for any single? How am I to know and who am I to say? I know what He had for me, long before I ever met Jonathan. I knew I was going to marry someone whose first kiss would also be my first kiss, who would know the answers to most of my questions, who would read books and be musically talented. (I didn't bargain on marrying someone who would make me give up drinking Dr. Pepper, but that's ok. I needed to anyway!) I knew I needed to marry someone with a stronger personality than myself, who wouldn't let me push him around. And I knew (before Jonathan entered the picture) that I hadn't met anyone like that yet. Therefore I was ready to wait. I had seen too many friends compromise and I honestly didn't want that said of me. I'm glad I don't have to say that of myself. If I had, I would be spending my time, right now, fighting against the wish to be single again. That would be a miserable life.

I used to have a Sunday School teacher who would tell us, "You'll never be content married, unless you are content single." At the time I both thought that was wise as well as having the thought, "If that's true, then I will never be content." Thankfully, Gilliam dispels this myth in her book. She admits to be lonely and wanting to find "home." She argues that is a good thing. We're always to be looking forward with our eyes upon the ultimate prize which we shall receive for having run the race well. For some people, they will be married. For others, they will be single. She hopes she won't be and I hope that for single Christian women as well. It is a lonely road and as a friend told Gilliam, "[She has] suffered much by being single." She does suffer a loneliness that is certainly not enviable, however at the same time it is not to be disdained.

The main thrust of her book (although, quite frankly, a little hard to discern at times) is that we should be looking for God in all the "single" places. In every area of loneliness, in every party you go to alone, for every lawn you have mow as a single female because there isn't a male to do it for you. But what a lesson for all of us, eh? We should be looking for God in all of "our places" whether single or married. That's a life calling for all of us.

We've all heard the commentary on how we are to be content single, how we shouldn't pursue certain careers as they somehow make us "less marriageable", or how maybe we should (as females) remain under our parents roofs and under our father's protection until our husband steps in to take responsibility for us. To all of that I say -- HOGWASH! We're all called to different timelines. Period. End of story. There's nothing to debate about that. It's a simple fact. My having left home to pursue a career in law shouldn't have (and ultimately didn't) have an effect on "my marriageability." (Although it worried some.) God has given us gifts and talents to USE. It's all for His glory and not for ours. Gilliam says a vocation is a calling out. A calling out BY a Caller. Why would we ignore the call? Because we think we know better? Because the Caller called when we weren't ready to go? Because we were waiting on the sidelines for what we thought was The Thing To Do? When the Caller comes a callin', its time to go, baby! Wherever. Whenever. Whatever. Obedience is the key. For anyone who would suggest that a single girl hold back from her calling to see if maybe "her man" will enter into the picture I say -- BACK OFF! Let her go where she knows she's being led. Keep your mouth shut unless you have some words of encouragement for her as she runs her race alone. It's a lonely enough race as it is. To try to hold her back is to increase the misery, so to speak. Let her run. Watch her go! Cheer her on! I think this book reminded me, as a married woman, to cheer on my single friends. I know I can't be everything to them. But I can offer a simple cheery word when needed. And this book, perhaps, has made me more alert. There are friends of mine that I long to see married -- to share the joy and to know the same journey. It's a blessing that I wish for them. But I cannot give it to them, nor can they nab it for themselves. So we wait. Together. As best as we can with as many encouraging words as we know how to give to each other.

Lastly, Gilliam addresses the issue of what to say when people ask single gals why they aren't married yet. Personally, I think that's a highly offensive question and absolutely none of the business of the person asking. Gilliam gives options of sarcasm or truth, but leans towards an honest remark. (Personally I prefer the sarcastic answer. Surprised?) At any rate, she references the story of the blind man who Jesus healed. After the healing, the people around asked why the man was blind to begin with. Was it some sin of his? Some sin of his parents? Jesus said no to both. Jesus DID say that the man was made blind so that the work of God could be accomplished in his life.

I have random pieces of paper sticking out all over this book. (It's a library copy.) So many pages and paragraphs that struck me as shareable. But perhaps the most important is this: That everyone, no matter whether they are single are married, are in the state that they are in so that the work of God can be accomplished in their lives. 'Nough said.

If you really do need help...

Parenting Magazine is always here to offer suggestions:

Why you should read to your kids.

I have a stack of books on the shelf already, awaiting Joshua's arrival.

Books left to buy (among other titles I know I am forgetting):

1. The Amelia Bedilla series;
2. The Berenstein Bear books;
3. Clifford the Big Red Dog series;
4. Curious George books;
5. The Story About Ping;
6. The Five Chinese Brothers; and my all-time favorite (not a classic by any means!)
7. The Piggy in the Puddle!

Mrs. Pollifax on Safari, by Dorothy Gillman

Sky introduced me to Mrs. Pollifax and I am forever indebted to her for some good times. Dorothy Gillman wrote the series about a grandmother who decides she needs to spice up her life by becoming a spy for the CIA, between 1966 and 2000. I suppose it has the flavor of Christie's Miss. Marple series, but Pollifax knows karate and I don't think Miss Marple does.

The adventures of Mrs. Pollifax begin in The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax(1966)wherein she decides she needs to spice up her life and shows up at CIA headquarters to volunteer as a spy. Mistaken for a tourist at first, they eventually decide that she might very well be of some use for them. Who would expect a grandmother on vacation? She turns out to be an incredible asset to the CIA and apparently they decide to use her services (again and again). I jumped ahead in the series because the library was selling a copy of Safari which I decided was a "must have." The complete list of titles in the series are as follows:

The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax (1966)
The Amazing Mrs. Pollifax (1970)
The Elusive Mrs. Pollifax (1971)
A Palm for Mrs. Pollifax (1973)
Mrs. Pollifax on Safari (1976)
Mrs. Pollifax on the China Station (1983)
Mrs. Pollifax and the Hong Kong Buddha (1985)
Mrs. Pollifax and the Golden Triangle (1988)
Mrs. Pollifax and the Whirling Dervish (1990)
Mrs. Pollifax and the Second Thief (1993)
Mrs. Pollifax Pursued (1995)
Mrs. Pollifax and the Lion Killer (1996)
Mrs. Pollifax, Innocent Tourist (1997)
Mrs. Pollifax Unveiled (2000)

Through some online exploration I also discovered two films were made out of the series. The first starred Rosalind Russell and was released in 1971 under the title Mrs. Pollifax - Spy. The second was a CBS television movie starring Angela Lansbury, made in 1999, and simply called The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax. Unfortunately, neither are available for sale in any format at the present time. Personally, I'm not sure which one intrigues me more -- liking both actresses very much. (I might have a harder time believing Angela Lansbury in the role given her Murder She Wrote years.)

Mrs. Pollifax is candy reading, really. Enjoyably clean and entertaining. I look forward to stumbling into another adventure with her in the very near future. (Thanks again, Sky!)

Two of my favorite activities these days....

Presenting Lily Mars, by Booth Tarkington

Finally. This book took some work to get through. Published in 1933 I was surprised, initially, at how much humor could be found in the book. Not to say that people in the 30's weren't funny, or maybe its just that my prior reading experience stops at about 1918-20 and skips ahead to the 40's. Another thing I was surprised by was Tarkington's use of a few bad words and the inappropriate use of God's name. In my mind, generations prior to the 50's were of a more noble and genteel sort and such language somehow seems beyond them. Given the fact that there really is nothing new under the sun, I know I shouldn't be taken aback. However, I always am. Not to say this book was loaded with language issues, because it wasn't. It just came as something of a shock to my system the few times I ran across it. The book is certainly NOT to be avoided based on that fact alone.

This book was written by Booth Tarkington, who wrote two Pulitzer Prize winning novels, The Magnificent Ambersons and Alice Adams (neither of which I have read). He was on the annual best seller list nine times. Two of his books were made into films. One was Alice Adams, and the other was Presenting Lily Mars. I had seen Presenting Lily Mars, which stars Judy Garland, which is the reason I picked up a copy of this book. I can say that the film is very loosely based on the book. The movie was filmed three years before Tarkington's death and I'd be very curious to know what his opinion of the Garland-ized version was.

The basic story line of this book is about Lily Mars, an aspiring young actress, who gets a break and makes it into a New York production. The entire story revolves around theatre people. If you do not like theatre people, you will not like this book. What's worse, somehow, is that Lily is a 17 year old theatre girl. Theatrics galore. If you do not like theatrical teenage girls, I cannot imagine that you will like this book. (Somehow this story was far more appealing with Judy Garland singing and dancing all the way through it - and I tend to dislike film remakes.)Recommendation for a good classic movie and accompanying book: Mrs. Miniver(published 1939) which starred Greer Garson in the film version (1942). Both the book and the movie, in that case, were done quite tastefully.

Lily reminded me a great deal of a 16 year old Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind. The problem with Lily is that she stays the same age throughout the same book so it feels as if Scarlett never grew up. Actually, if you took Lily and put her in Georgia, I think you'd pretty much get the picture. Since Gone With the Wind was not published until 1936 I have to wonder if Mitchell gained any inspiration from Tarkington.

The main male character in the story, Owen Gilbert, a playwright, describes Lily in the following manner:

" . . . she had no discrimination, too many men fell in love with her, she had no discretion and only desultory flickerings of commonsense. She was all flaws, ignorances and an accidental talent of a scope yet unknown." (p. 139)

I don't do teenage girls very well. Hence, my general dislike of Lily. I found her flighty, ignorant and intolerably unable to listen to the counsel of others. In short, she drove me batty. I picked up a copy of this book at a used bookstore in Placerville, CA for $6.50. And for that much, I found it worth the read. However, I noticed that Amazon.com has some used copies going for as much as $30 and I'm contemplating its sale. Some books just aren't worth keeping.

Cleaning Off My Bookshelves

Seeing that I am, once again, waiting for interlibrary loan requests to come in so that I can finish the August Reads for Bookfest,
I'm trying to take advantage of the time by reading other books on my bookshelf, as well as from the library. I'm always so tempted to read books that I don't own so I keep buying and checking them out, only adding to the stack of books that I own and haven't yet read! THIS month I am determined to read at least two books that are already on my shelf that I haven't touched yet. One such book is the one I'm reading now, Presenting Lily Mars, by Booth Carkington. Anyone seen the 1943 movie version with Judy Garland? I used to love it. This past February, when we went down to CA for a wedding, I stumbled across the original book (a first edition! woo hoo!) copyrighted 1930! Pristine condition (not like the picture on my side bar). As you may have guessed, I still haven't read it. How long do some of you hold on to books until you actually sit down to read them? Well, now the book is calling me in direct competition to a library book I picked up yesterday. But the other shall wait. Lily has waited long enough (although I have some that have waited far longer).

What's your average "wait" time to get to a book and how frequently do you get ahead of yourself in the buying department? Full bookshelves are lovely to look at and muse over, but if you haven't read them - what's the point? (Other than book greed, of course, which I confess I have.)

Peace Like a River, by Leif Enger

I know this book has been recommended to me before. By several people in fact. I just can't remember who it was that recommended it or when. At any rate, I finally got around to reading it. As mentioned previously, Sara Nelson briefly mentioned this story in her own book, So Many Books, So Little Time. Given the fact that she thought so little of it that she mentioned it only in passing, I had high hopes for a good story. I was not disappointed.

I, like Ani, had a hard time classifying this book. Before writing a review of it I decided to do a little research on Enger and stumbled across an interview he gave on this work. You can read that here. Interestingly enough, Enger would put his work in the "western" category. I'm not entirely sure I would agree - but hey - he's the author. If anything, I find it a haunting western, perhaps because its set in North Dakota and having heard enough tales of ND from Julie's visits there it just seems like a haunting place and thus befitting of such a story.

Truthfully, I almost stopped reading the book by about chapter three. The story begins with the Land family in a precarious position being threatened by two teenage boys who had less than sterling moral standards. To put it bluntly - I was a bit creeped out. After my first day of reading I had to ask Jonathan to pray over my dreams that night (because I knew I'd be dreaming about the story). He asked what I was reading. I paused. "Peace Like a River?" I replied. He burst out laughing. I only decided to continue reading when the teenager boys were done away with by Rueben Land's brother, Davy. (I hesitate to say too much about the story precisely because I think its a worthy read and therefore don't really wish to give away much of the plot at all.) Peace returned when the boys were gone!

I was moved by the character of Rueben who acts as the narrator of the story. I could feel his inward struggle of wanting to be faithful to his errant brother and yet wanting to do what was right at the same time. Loyalty vs. truth is a hard battle to wage. Rueben also made me laugh outloud. Particularly during the scene where the principle of his school, Mr. Holgren, is wearing a hat with a sign on it that says, "Shoot me!" without being aware of the message on his head. Rueben notices the sign during an assembly period and is struggling to hold in his laughter but ultimately looses the battle. Rueben explains, "I knew defeat. . . . I laughed so hard my sight went dark. I laid my forehead down on the table to sob. Did anyone laugh with me?" I burst out laughing while reading Enger's entire page of description in regards to Rueben's attempt not to laugh. I could sympathize. =)

Enger makes his characters so real that its hard to believe that this isn't a true story. It could very well be. His characters struggle with belief in God, miracles and their own sinful natures. Enger professes to be a Christian but doesn't seem too eager to put his readers on notice of that fact. It's a clean tale (although it starts out in a spooky fashion) with a heavy emphasis on Reuben's father's faith. You know that the father figure is a strong Christian but you don't know whether the author himself is.

One thing that really struck me about this book was the timely entry of two additional and essential characters to the plot. Just when you start getting a little tired with the immediate Land family, a new character is introduced into their midst and her personality keeps the story moving along. By the time you get used to her being around, the final main character is introduced. I've never noticed that in most stories. They just sort of flow along. This story flowed, but it really needed the two last main characters or it would not have worked so well. Enger says in his interview that he would read the scenes he had written to his family and gauge the success of his story on their interaction. All I can say is - his family has good taste in timing.

In short, I'd say go grab a copy of this book and give it a read. Force yourself past the first few chapters and I'd bet you won't be disappointed. I'd be very curious to hear what others who have read the book have to say about it.

So Many Books, So Little Time: A Year of Passionate Reading, by Sara Nelson

The other day I decided to stop and have lunch at Borders bookstore and then to go about the store writing down titles of books I am interested in reading. I wandered the entire store and ended up writing down about 10 titles. One area of the bookstore that piqued my interest was the Book Review/Critique section. I found two books related to a "year long reading plan." I was amused mostly. One such title was this book, So Many Books, So Little Time: A Year of Passionate Reading.

This book is written by Sara Nelson who is, among other things, a publishing columnist for The New York Observer and has been a contributor to The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Those are her better qualifications as a book critic. I think very little of the fact that she is now a senior contributing editor at Glamour magazine. Nevertheless, curiosity was raised. I was mostly curious by the thought of a non-reader (or a seldom-do-I-ever-pick-up-a-book reader) taking time out for this one. A year of passionate reading? What is this? Something to be inspired by? Amused by? I went with amused, given the Bookfest 2006 project. Quite simply, I HAD to read this book to understand what all the fuss was about. Why write a book about a year's experience with books? I wasn't about to buy a copy of the book so I found a copy at our local library.

As I began this book my thought was, "I could have written this book!" She seemed to have my personality and writing style. She made me laugh. She said things I understood. For example, when she began reading a book she didn't like, she just stopped reading. She says:

"So I did something I have only in my maturity learned how to do: I stopped reading. . . . Allowing yourself to stop reading a book - at page 25, 50, or even, less frequently, a few chapters from the end -- is a rite of passage in a reader's life, the literary equivalent of a bar mitzvah or a communion, the moment at which you look at yourself an announce: Today I am an adult. I can make my own decisions."

(page 55)

Nelson also has particular opinions in regards to "double-booking" one's self. For example, some books deserve your undivided attention. You cannot possibly think of interrupting their story for another. Time is simply not meant to be divided up between certain characters and thoughts. Yet other times double-booking is hardly a problem at all. You feel no sense of loyalty, devotion or even a smidgen of a desire to devote all your emotions, thoughts and energies to one book and one book alone. The relationship between books vary. She recognizes this and I loved that.

I also identified with her aversion to National Bestsellers and Hot Ticket books. She says in discussing one particularly "hyped" book:

"The idea, I guess, is to turn a book into a media event, but this is a strategy that has major backfire potential. For me - as, I believe, for a lot of readers - when a book gets overhyped, we get mad. We're a funny, cliquish group, we book people, and sometimes we resist liking - or even resist opening - the very thing everybody tells us we're supposed to like."

(p. 61)

Can anyone say The Da Vinci Code? I've had my library copy for three weeks already and I cannot get up the desire to crack the book open. It's seen too much and been too much for me to care anymore. Maybe someday I will. Not today.

I was all set to recommend So Many Books to every reader I personally know. You know the drill - buy copies for people to convince them that it really IS a great book! And maybe, just maybe, the fact that I gave it to them will inspire them to read it just for laughs. After all, that's what I was getting out of it.

Then I hit the midsection of the book wherein she stopped talking about her book fetishes and began talking about the books she had decided to read over the course of her Passionate Reading Year. The book quickly took a dive and I began to identify less and less with her as her political/religious believes began to surface. Let's just say, our personalities really aren't that similar, although our humor might be.

Nelson is a fan of the modern novel in a way I can never be. Mostly because I find most modern novels to be a bunch of rubbish. Occasionally there's a jewel sparkling in the dump heap, but they are rather rare. Nelson doesn't mind exploring. She mentioned a few books that I could feel an interest rising for. Then she gave away the end of the story and I wasn't interested anymore. Mostly because the plots and endings were dark, depressing and generally not worth reading about anyway! She is fond of lots of political movements (and likes to read about them) that I will never support and/or agree with. I'll leave it at that.

Occasionally she'd mention a book I had read and it was interesting to hear her opinion. For example, she mentioned that she had read Housekeeping and mentioned it as a benchmark for the feminist movement. (?) She mentioned Charlotte's Web. (She didn't really care for it.) She mentioned Peace Like a River which I picked up at the library along with her book. Thankfully she didn't give away the ending. I can find out for myself. I figured that since she didn't talk about the end, nor did she rhapsodize about it, it has the potential of being liked by myself.

The other thing that I found rather disconcerting about her Year of Passionate Reading was the fact that her family life really did suffer as a result. However, I don't believe its suffering anymore than it ever has. She has a son but he's outranked by books. At least, in the way she describes it (although my guess is that she'd deny it otherwise). I love books and I love reading. However, when Jonathan comes home the book receives its bookmark (well, most of the time) and I'm done for awhile. I anticipate having less and less time to read as the years go by. However, I cannot imagine the pleasure of a good book decreasing!

On the whole, if you can take some talk about some bum books, Nelson really is amusing. Don't go into this book anticipating enjoying the same type of works. However, if you suffer from any number of book fetishes, you'll probably get a chuckle or two out of the first half of the book. And you can always close the book and walk away from it forever if you hate it about mid-way through. After all, that's your prerogative!

Always Enough: God's Miraculous Provision among the Poorest Children on Earth, by Rolland and Heidi Baker

Jonathan and I both read this book at the request of our pastor who encouraged the entire congregation to read this book. Our church has been focusing a great deal lately on the work of the Holy Spirit today. I know that there are a great deal of opinions out there on whether or not the miracles described in Acts and other books of the NT were only for that time period. Are the gifts dead? Can we still see and experience miracles in the same way that the early church did? Was the power that was given to the apostles meant for us today? A great many people more knowledgeable than I have debated this point. I don't intend to get into any of that with this book review. All I mean to do is share my own thoughts on the matter. [Please read: Carrie does not intend this review to open up a debate on the topic. But you can read the book yourself and formulate your own opinion of it if you feel so led. You are MORE than welcome to share your opinion but I'm not interested in arguing about issues wherein we differ on this topic.]

We've read some interesting books on the topic, including Surprised by the Power of the Spirit by Jack Deere which we'd highly recommend for a more "in depth" approach on the topic. Deere taught at Dallas Theological Seminary and gives more scriptural background and proof for his arguments than Always Enough does. I have on my reading list to read Miracles by C.S. Lewis and Holy Spirit by Billy Graham (someone I honestly thought I'd never touch in the reading department) and Prophecy in the New Testament Church by William Grudem. It's rather a gruelling topic but one that we feel is deserving of attention. My background is very reformed and this is a stretch for me spiritually, to say the least. However, the more I learn about the Holy Spirit's role in today's world the more eager I am to develop a personal relationship with the Helper that God sent for us and to us (John 15:26). So that's where I'm at and now you know what type of books I'm eyeing in the theological department.

Now to the book at hand!

The Bakers (not to be confused with Jim and Tammy, please) are missionaries/ministers in Mozambique. This book was published in 2003 and today the Bakers spend more time traveling in different countries talking about their ministry than they spend actually living in Mozambique. The most intense portions of this book focus on the years 2000-2002, following Mozambique's civil war and mass flooding and other natural disasters. Essentially, this book is a diary of what they saw and experienced while serving God and the people there during this time frame. It's more or less a documentary. They share their prayers and answers, signs and miracles, but fail to provide scriptural back-up for their message. The scriptures are dealt with in vague terms. So if you are looking for a thesis on the topic, this book isn't it. However, that being said, it's challenging in that it stretches the mind in what you think is possible today and what is closed to the early church.

The Bakers feel called to minister to the "poorest of the poor" in Mozambique. They take in children from the dumps and slums and nurture them as best as they can with the resources that they have. Towards the beginning of their ministry, Heidi asked how serving the multitudes was going to be possible, due to limited resources. God's answer to her was, "There will always be enough, because I died." Their story can be likened to George Muller in that they have the same faith to sit children down for dinner and pray for the food to arrive. Muller's faith was rewarded. Apparently so was the Baker's. They tell one story of a time where there had not been food for their immediate family of four, or the hundreds of orphans that they were caring for, for days on end. Everyone was hungry. A local lady made food for just their family of four to eat. The Bakers insisted on being able to feed everyone before they would eat the food themselves. They prayed over the food and began to serve. Miraculously, there was enough food for everyone there to eat until full. Very reminiscent of the story of the loaves and fishes AND Muller's prayer for food for the orphans (although his tale is rather different and easier to buy for the average Joe).

This example is certainly not the wildest that the Baker's share. There is talk of the blind being given sight (mostly explained by curses placed by witch doctors in Africa being removed by the casting out of demons)and the dead being raised to life. It's a radical and intense book. To say the least. There are a great many more examples I could share.

Their base argument to Christians is that we must come to the realization that the power of God is just as available to us today as it was to the apostles. Like I said, this is not a thesis. This is merely a documentary of the things that God has chosen to do through their ministry and through their obedience.

Jonathan and I both feel that this power is available to Christians today. However, we really don't seek it and frequently doubt that it exists. How much more would we see and experience of God and His ways if we truly believed that all things were possible? It's rather mind boggling and, quite frankly, rather frightening. Jonathan and I both like things we can get our minds around. What can be easily and solidly explained? What can you share that won't sound foolish? What can you do that won't seem strange and bizarre? Why do we care so much? God calls us to be utterly abandoned to Him and yet our argument back is, "Well, if I abandon myself and surrender myself to Your will, You might do something I don't feel comfortable with." I for sure feel that way. I like comfort, safety, and the familiar. I don't like surprises. Learning how to be surprised by God and still be in a decent mood afterwards is rather difficult. He's a disconcerting God at times. He shakes us up and spills us out and gives us bruises. We lick our wounds, ask why, and try to revert back to our old thoughts and ways, convinced we know better than He does. But how could we?

Therefore I can't lay this book aside and say, "Well, that's nice for the Bakers. Thank heavens I'll never have to witness any of that." While its true I could potentially avoid such things, do I want to? Their book didn't convince me of anything. Rather it posed the question of: "What if...?" Can it happen here in America? Can it happen in my hometown here? Can it happen in our home? Will we close the door on it? It's much easier to accept the present than the scary unknown. But what is the potential in being able to see Him manifest Himself more fully in our day-to-day lives? Why would we pass it up? In order to avoid the risk of looking foolish and sounding foolish when we explain what God has done?

I can testify to only this in my own life -- for every problem that has cropped up in my pregnancy I have called on my church for prayer. The moment I have either 1. asked for prayer and/or 2. had someone lay hands on me and pray for me, I have experienced instant healing. I'm fully convinced that God can heal instantly and miraculously. Of course, it's much easier to believe when it comes to bad cramping or acid reflux problems. I would likely be more doubtful if I were to begin going blind or something more frightening. My faith has been built up in the little things but on the big thing I'm still skeptical. Most people are.

The Bakers testament to the things they have seen and/or heard of and/or experienced for themselves is very believable. For Mozambique. But why not here - in America?

Therein lies the question.