Ronald Reagan's Simple Testimony

I was sitting in a room, and across from me, about ten feet away, was seated the then governor of California and soon-to-be president of the United States, Ronald Reagan.  I had the opportunity to ask him some questions.  I said, “Governor, I would like to ask you a very important spiritual question.  If something were to happen to you and you were to die and stand before almighty God, and He said to you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ what would you say?”

His response was surprising.  He doubled over, put his head down between his knees and stayed there some time.  Then, after about thirty seconds, he slowly straightened in his chair, looked me in the eye, and in a very sober tone said, “I don’t deserve to go to heaven.  The only thing I could say would be, ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him  should not perish, but have everlasting life.’”

(From  D. James Kennedy's Risen Indeed: Evidence for the Resurrection, Coral Ridge Ministries, 2005)

The Top 5 (April 13)

* "On Abortion, Donald Trump Goes The Way Of Stephen A. Douglas" (John Daniel Davidson, Federalist)

From the article -- By taking this stand, that abortion should not be a federal issue, Trump has not just betrayed his pro-life supporters but taken the side of Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln. He has insisted that popular sovereignty, not moral principle, should decide the abortion question, just as Douglas insisted popular sovereignty in the new federal territories must decide the slavery question...

As Lincoln understood about slavery back in the 1850s, the eventual political consequences of tolerating abortion in some states will be the acceptance of it in all the states. (We’ve already seen this with the abortion referendums in Kansas and Ohio, with more referendums on the way.) Moral neutrality on abortion — Trump’s “popular sovereignty” approach — will weaken the foundation for legal prohibition and open the way to tolerance and eventually political acceptance.

* "Trump’s Mixed Messaging On Abortion And IVF Plays Right Into Democrats’ Electoral Strategy" (Jordan Boyd, Federalist)

From the article -- The Republican once hailed as the most successful pro-life president in American history made clear on Monday that he is softening his position on abortion and beefing up his support for in vitro fertilization ahead of the 2024 general election.

Former President Donald Trump has a history of criticizing heartbeat bills when they come from his political rivals, misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs v. Jackson decision, and wrongfully blaming Republicans’ 2022 midterm losses on their unapologetically pro-life positions. His recent declaration on “abortion rights” only further confirms that his once-celebrated pro-life track record doesn’t meet voters’ demands of a Republican president.

 * "YouTube Spreads Abortion Pill Misinformation" (Stephen Kokx, Human Life Review)

From the article -- Pro-lifers point out that while abortion pills are dangerous in themselves, using them alone and without medical supervision can be especially harmful. To that end, ADF released a video in February titled “Abortion Drugs are High-Risk. We must hold the FDA Accountable for Removing Commonsense Safeguards.” The minute-long clip featured a woman who said she suffered “intense pain and prolonged bleeding” after taking abortion pills on her own.

YouTube added a “context” note to the video in response, claiming that abortion, whether medicinal or surgical, is “done by a licensed healthcare professional.” Attorneys generals from 16 states sent a letter to YouTube CEO Neal Mohan arguing that the note was not only misleading but also false, as chemical abortions are NOT done “by a health professional.”

* "Admit it, Dawkins, you totally screwed up" (Laura Perrins, The Conservative Woman)

From the article -- Dawkins was part of a group of New Atheists who after 9/11 were all the rage for a while, a bit like bell bottoms, although you don’t hear much from them now. Goodness, what an insufferably smug bunch they were: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, as well as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hitchens has passed on and Ayaan Hirsi Ali has converted to Christianity. Dawkins now declares himself a ‘cultural Christian’..

I can perhaps understand why Dawkins and Co didn’t want to focus on Islamic extremism and instead pushed the idea that children gathering around the crib at Christmastime was just as mad and bad as flying planes into buildings. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and if you want to stay alive these days, best to keep your mouth shut when talking about certain belief systems. Still, Dawkins is now in a panic. He is suffering from buyer’s remorse.

* "Repentance Brings Revival" (Franklin Graham, Decision)

From the article -- Few were worse than King Manasseh, the son of righteous King Hezekiah. His 55-year reign was marked by great wickedness and evil. He did evil in the sight of the Lord. He built altars to false gods. He practiced sorcery and divination, and even sacrificed his very own son in the fire. He also shed much innocent blood (2 Kings 21:1-18). Can you even imagine such evil?  The compiler of the Chronicles, however, pens a wonderfully encouraging addition to the distressing narrative of the kings that should give hope to all who feel they are unworthy of God’s reconciling love, even those who have committed great sin in their lives. 

“A Test of Character” (On Reading The Wind In the Willows)

Claire and I just finished another interesting and inspiring online Hillsdale College course, this one entitled “Classic Children’s Literature.” And that has prompted me to drop into Vital Signs Blog another quick post on the subject. You see, I have already posted a column dealing with children’s literature earlier this week. That short piece (“What’s Missing from the Guardian’s List of Books For Boys? Plenty!”) was prompted by a request from a friend here in our neighborhood who needed ideas on books for his son. 

But today, sparked by Dr. Daniel Coupland’s closing Hillsdale lecture on Kenneth Grahame’s delightful The Wind In the Willows, I’m moving again into the realm of children’s fiction with a short column which I sincerely hope will be an encouragement for you yourself to take a trip with Ratty, Badger, Mole, and Mr. Toad very soon. (And, by all means, don’t wait until you have a kid around! The book is a gem for perceptive adult souls too.)

“A Test of Character” (On Reading The Wind In the Willows)

The intriguing, heartwarming, and much beloved book The Wind in the Willows began as tales told by Scottish-born banker Kenneth Grahame to his only child, Alastair whose premature birth created such health issues as being blind in one eye. Alastaire loved his father’s stories but they  ended up going much farther afield, even winning the praises of such notables as C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, A.A. Milne, and President Teddy Roosevelt. Indeed, Roosevelt is not only credited with persuading Scribners to publish the book in the first place, the President wrote a letter to Grahame from the White House enthusiastically thanking him for his effort and told him that he considered the characters in the book to have now become his “dear friends.” 

You say you haven’t read it lately? Maybe even since the days of childhood? Well, I would urge you to discover afresh the joys, the beauty, and the profound life lessons of The Wind in the Willows. And to further whet your appetite, let me pass along a few remarkable responses to Graham’s classic, including famed Vanity Fare editor Richard Middleton who said of The Wind In the Willows, “It is the best book ever written for children and one of the best written for adults”.

And check out the opinions of A.A. Milne, the celebrated author who gave us the Winnie the Pooh stories. Milne once said of The Wind in the Willows: “I shall not describe the book, for no description would help it.  But I shall just say this; that it is what I call a Household Book.  By a Household Book I mean a book which everybody in the household loves and quotes continually ever afterwards; a book which is read aloud to every new guest, and is regarded as the touchstone of his worth.  But it is a book which makes you feel that, though everybody in the house loves it, it is only you who really appreciate it in its true value, and that the others are scarcely worthy of it.  It is obvious, you persuade yourself, that the author was thinking of you when he wrote it.  ‘I hope this will please Jones,’ were his final words, as he laid down his pen.”

Here’s yet another sparkling observation from Milne: “One does not argue about The Wind in the Willows. The young man gives it to the girl with whom he is in love, and, if she does not like it, he asks her to return his letters. The older man tries it on his nephew, and alters his will accordingly. The book is a test of character. We can't criticize it, because it is criticizing us. But I must give you one word of warning. When you sit down to it, don't be so ridiculous as to suppose that you are sitting in judgment on my taste, or on the art of Kenneth Grahame. You are merely sitting in judgment on yourself. You may be worthy: I don’t know. But it is you who are on trial.”

C.S. Lewis also chimed in on The Wind in the Willows. “It might be expected that such a book would unfit us for the harshness of reality and send us back to our daily lives unsettled and discontented. I do not find that it does so. The happiness which it presents to us is, in fact, full of the simplest and most attainable things -- food, sleep, exercise, friendship, the face of nature, even (in a sense) religion. That ‘simple but sustaining meal’ of ‘bacon and broad beans and a macaroni pudding’ which Rat gave to his friends has, I doubt not, helped down many a real nursery dinner. And in the same way the whole story, paradoxically enough, strengthens our relish for real life. This excursion into the preposterous sends us back with renewed pleasure to the actual.” 

Elsewhere Lewis wrote, “I never met The Wind in the Willows or the Bastable books till I was in my late twenties, and I do not think I have enjoyed them any the less on that account. I am almost inclined to set it up as a canon that a children’s story which is enjoyed only by children is a bad children’s story. The good ones last.” 

And finally, here’s one more. G.K. Chesterton scholar James Woodruff once named The Wind in the Willows as the most Chestertonian thing ever written…by anyone other than Chesterton, that is. He claimed this was because it is “a celebration of the primal things Chesterton loved -- Home and Friendship and Adventure -- all suffused with a sense of wonder and lived out by characters who write poetry and go forth to battle and both eat and drink with right good will.”

So how can I add anything else to these superb testimonies? Suffice it to say, that I too did not come to The Wind In the Willows until my adulthood. But, bless the Lord, that I finally did discover the Riverbank, the Wild Wood, Toad Hall, and the other enduring locales found in Kenneth Grahame’s wonderful world -- complete with the matchless illustrations provided by Ernest H. Shepard. My, my; this book has deepened my wonder and appreciation of so many grand things: God’s rich and intriguing Creation, home, faithfulness, friendship, kindness, the responsibility to defend the young and the innocent, hospitality, the noble longing for adventure that lies in each human heart, and the need to courageously fight for the right. 

The Wind In the Willows -- go and enjoy!

A Unique Dickens Novel

I have been hanging out a bit with Charles Dickens here in the first quarter of 2024; first with a re-reading of the massive David Copperfield and then, more recently, with another rewarding re-read of A Tale of Two Cities. Both novels were wonderful challenges with important and fresh value.

David Copperfield is classic Dickens -- exquisite descriptions, the vivid creation of emotion and mood, enlightening analyses of both social conditions and individual character, a bountiful cast of intriguing personalities, occasional moments of high comedy and satire, and elaborate plot lines full of surprise and drama and moral lessons. It was rich reading through all 682 pages.

But A Tale of Two Cities? That book is, in all the voluminous Dickens canon, absolutely one-of-a-kind. This striking description of the French Revolution is unrelentlessly intense. And the scenes, the spirit, the villains, the mad violence of the mobs, and then the bloodshed issuing from beneath guillotine, are unforgettable. The outrageous nihilism and irrational injustice which fed the Red Terror are presented by Charles Dickens in raw detail, making it impossible for the reader to ever again be swayed by arguments that the French Revolution was, in any way whatsoever, noble or measured or justified. 

And when I say unrelentlessly intense, I mean just that. For completely unique to Dickens novels, there was not one comic character in A Tale of Two Cities, not one comic scene. And even when the reader finds a witty or wry comment, it only serves to underscore the blasphemy and vile wickedness of which man, unmoored by Christian values, is capable.

And yet, set against the depth of depravity which was the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities is also the most Christian, and thus most hopeful, of all of Charles Dickens’ novels. Yes, Dickens demonstrates the profound and enduring values of Christianity to the social order in almost all of his books. Those values provide the foundation for the powerful criticisms in his work of both individual baseness and social rot. But it is in A Tale of Two Cities where Dickens openly (even boldly) presents the power of the gospel in transforming an individual. Indeed, the finale of the novel not only presents a selfish, sardonic, wastrel becoming a forgiven and elevated hero, but it repeatedly points to the reason for that transformation being the character’s his meditations on and acceptance of Jesus momentous claim, “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die.”

I have long maintained that A Tale of Two Cities was my least favorite of the Dickens novels. But, after reading it again -- for the 4th or 5th time by now -- I have raised it higher, much higher on the scale. 

Yes, Virginia; Books Are Still Appreciated Here

For several reasons, my reading started slow in 2024, but I’m pleased that it picked up to a more normal pace in March. And there have been in that mix a couple of clunkers, several very enjoyable “pleasure reads,” and a few really outstanding books of which I pass along my highest recommendations. Here is a quick breakdown...

First the “clunkers,” those books that rate 2 stars or less. Those would be: Piercing the Reich by Joseph Persico (Can you believe that a history of late WWII espionage could actually be boring? This one was.)  Nightmare in Pink by John D. MacDonald proved to be one of the least plausible, least captivating in the whole series of Travis McGee novels, a series that I usually like quite a bit. The same kind of disappointment came when I finished San Andreas by Alistair MacLean for, generally speaking, I love MacLean’s well-paced adventure thrillers. And finally, this time around, I found Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea rather flat. I even had to prod myself into finishing it.

I had much better fare when reading these 3 star books: Fear Is the Key (Alistair MacLean), Eavesdropping on Lucifer (Don Stenberg), The African Queen (C.S. Forester), From Prison Ministry to Prison (ChristyAnne Collins), The Romantic Prince (Rafael Sabatini), Silver Dollar: The Story of the Tabors (David Karsner), It’s Your Turn, Mr. Moto (John P. Marquand), A Man Lay Dead (Ngaio Marsh), Hickory Hickory Dock (Agatha Christie), Seawitch (Alistair MacLean), The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes (Adrain Conan Doyle, John Dickson Carr), and A Purple Place for Dying (John D. MacDonald).

And finally, the best reads of the quarter -- all fully deserving of the 4 stars: David Copperfield (Charles Dickens), Redeemed: My Journey After Abortion (Toni McFadden), Decades of Decadence: How Our Spoiled Elites Blew America's Inheritance of Liberty, Security, and Prosperity (Marco Rubio), No Little People: Sixteen Sermons for the 20th Century (Francis Schaeffer), and A Tale of Two Cities (Charles Dickens).

What’s Missing from the Guardian's List of Books For Boys? Plenty!

It has been 16 or 17 years since I first described my frustration and disdain differences with the list of “160 Books All Boys Should Read” by one of England’s most left-leaning newspapers, the Guardian. But because a friend and mountain-climbing colleague recently asked me about books I might recommend for his son, I am posting an updated version of the piece I originally wrote in response to the Guardian’s list. Here it is...

The Guardian’s list of “160 Books All Boys Should Read” was not only a very disappointing compilation, it was an absolutely terrible list, a compelling example of just how far Western cultural standards have devolved in these last decades of mediocrity, leftist political-correctness, and the wacky insistences of the woke crowd. 

Out of that entire 160, there were just 8 books of their entire 160 that I, a lifelong reader, and one who holds a particular endearment for classic children’s literature, had read. No, that’s not exactly true. Make that only 7, because my version of Kidnapped was, alas, not the “graphic novel in full colour” edition that made the Guardian’s list.

Those 7, by the way, were Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe, King Solomon’s Mines by H. Rider Haggard, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson, The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer also by Mark Twain.

Therefore, what was most significant (and sadly inexplicable) was what the list left out. Here are just a few of the most serious omissions. Not only was the rest of JRR Tolkien’s classic Lord of the Rings series nowhere to be found in that whole 160 books, there was not one Sir Walter Scott title that made the list. Not Ivanhoe; not Rob Roy; not even the moving poetry of The Lady of the Lake. None! Furthermore, there were no Jack London titles. No G.A. Henty. No James Fenimore Cooper, John Buchan, Jules Verne, A.A. Milne, or Edgar Allan Poe. Unbelievably, there wasn’t any recommendation for Arthur Conan Doyle -- not The White Company, not The Lost World and, quite shockingly, none of the Sherlock Holmes collections.  

But, amazing as this has already been, that’s not all!

Watership Down didn’t make the list, nor did Kon-Tiki, Raffles, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Johnny Tremain, Robin Hood, Sink the Bismarck, The Iliad, or Knights of the Round Table, or any of the Hardy Boys or Tom Swift mysteries. 

Even the Bible was absent!

Peter Pan author James Barrie was missing from the Guardian list of “160 Books All Boys Should Read” of list. So too were James Herriot, O. Henry, Herman Melville, Rafael Sabatini, and the Brothers Grimm. And, though it’s really hard to believe, but the vapid and inane Guardian list didn’t even recommend Charles Dickens or Alexander Dumas!

Almost needless to say then, Jonathan Swift wasn’t there. H.G. Wells wasn’t there. G.K. Chesterton, Erle Stanley Gardner, and Washington Irving were not there. A.E. W. Mason or H.E. Bates were not there. And even taller literary giants were inexplicably left cooling their heels in the Guardian’s outer office: George Orwell, Victor Hugo, Kenneth Grahame, C. S. Forester, and Horatio Alger.

Tarka the Otter was missing. So was The Song of Roland and Don Quixote and Lorna Doone and The Neverending Story and The Wizard of Oz and The Prisoner of Zenda, no Ben-Hur…and none of the absolute gems from C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia.

Of course, you can guess by now that such sparkling historians as Winston Churchill, Samuel Eliot Morison, Walter Lord, Shelby Foote, and John Toland were not in the list. That too is an inexcusable crime.

Going through this list of “160 Books That All Boys Should Read” was, to say the very least, a sad and very disconcerting experience. And, feeling that I need to respond in some way more positive than just running into the night screaming, I pass along these humble paragraphs with their reminders of what exceptional “boy’s books” are still there waiting to enlighten, thrill, and inspire to manly virtues.

The Top 5 (March 6)

* "CDC Releases Hidden COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Reports" (Zachary Stieber, Epoch Times)

From the article -- "However, according to data released in 2022 as a result of a different lawsuit, nearly 8 percent of the 10 million users required medical attention or hospital care after vaccination, and many others reported missing school, work, or other normal activities."

* "Living in the Land of the Enemy" (Tom Gilson, The Stream)

From the article -- "Joe Biden’s support for 'Trangender Day of Visibility' on Easter Sunday was a sharp slap in the face of Christ and Christianity. He might as well have called Christians “enemies of the land.” I’m sure he sees us as enemies (politically if not officially). His party has been telling us that in so many words for years now. This raises a disturbing yet unavoidable question for believers: Does that make Biden our enemy, too? What about other progressives, especially their leaders, who stand just as strongly against our beliefs and values? Are they our enemies, too?"

* "Abortion Pills and the Supreme Court" (Edward Mechmann, Human Life Review)

From the article -- "Chemical abortion is a two-drug process intended to kill and expel a developing child from the womb in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. The first drug is mifepristone. Its only purpose is to kill a baby in the womb by denying her nutrition and oxygen. The second drug, misoprostol, is used for legitimate purposes but is also used for chemical abortions as well. According to recent reports, over 60% of abortions are currently performed this way."

* "Scotland’s new hate crime law is no laughing matter" (David Robertson, (The Wee Flea)

From the article -- "This means that the subjective feeling of a perceived victim, or of a policeman, could be enough to have you accused of a hate crime – one which carries a sentence of up to seven years." and "The police in Scotland have said they will investigate every report of hate crime, despite having recently announced that they would not be investigating every case of ‘low level’ crime, including apparently some cases of theft!"

* "The WHO’s Power Grab" (John Tierney, City Journal)

From the article -- "The response to Covid was the greatest mistake in the history of the public-health profession, but the officials responsible for it are determined to do even worse. With the support of the Biden administration, the World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking unprecedented powers to impose its policies on the United States and the rest of the world during the next pandemic."

The Top 5 (March 30)

* "Israel’s Orwellian nightmare: The Jewish state swings in the wind because the genocidal Palestinians are said to have a case." (Melanie Phillips, Jewish News Service)

* "Biden’s Boss Tightens the Screws: Mexico’s president has America hooked on what he’s selling." (Todd Bensman, American Mind)

* "What Kid Needs Parents When Government Schools Dish Out Everything From Dinner To Hormones? -- These government school programs follow the Marxist playbook of destroying the family and making citizens fully reliant upon the state." (Victoria Manning, Federalist)

* "Democrats want to tax your home, your retirement, your everything" (Carol Roth, Fox News)

* "Easter Is The World’s Most Historically Verified Holiday" (Scott S. Powell, Federalist)