Some of my favorite books!

Just wanted to post something fun and see if anyone else loves these books, too! We will have a common treasure! If you see one that you love, comment and let me know what you love about it!

-Lemony Snicket’s “A Series of Unfortunate Events”: I remember getting the first book in the series from my aunt one year for Christmas. I devoured it, and she purchased the next 2 or three for me. The rest I ended up either buying myself or borrowing from the library. These are special to me because of the sentiment of the gift, and because they were one of the first chapter book series that I ever finished. I loved the brilliance of Klaus, and Violet’s inventiveness, and of course, little Sunny’s knack for biting things. They always found a way out of whatever dreadful situation they were in, and that inspired me to keep going through my ‘unfortunate events’, too.

-Garth Nix’s “Abhorsen” Trilogy: I read these in high school and have re-read them a few times since. Never heavy, never hard to read, but always full of conflict, suspense and cleverness (and of course, the wonderfully orchestrated plot twists!).

-Clare Dunkle’s “Hollow Kingdom” Trilogy: Beautifully written, and a series I couldn’t get enough of. I loved Marak’s humor and practicality, and Kate’s stubborn willfulness, and of course, little ‘M’! A wonderful re-casting of an old myth.

-Allison Croggon’s “Pellinor” Series: A lesser-known but gorgeous fantasy. The second book had me in tears the whole time I read it. The last book was very deep and complex, which made it a little hard to understand, but I’ve only read the whole series once. Well written characters, wonderful plot twists and surprises. Probably one of the most influential series on my own writing.

-C.S. Lewis’ “The Chronicles of Narnia”: These didn’t take me long to read. Previously I had only read “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” but I was given the whole series as a gift and finally read it all. Very influential on my own writing, with regards to the genre and spiritual cast. Some parts were very simple, and some parts seemed as if they didn’t belong, but the series as a whole is wonderful. The last book was a little confusing and very blatantly a spiritual allegory, but all in all I liked it.

-Ted Dekker’s “The Circle” Series: Amazingly written. One of the best modern fantasies I’ve read. After reading it, and then reading the first of Donaldson’s “Covenant” series, I noticed some parallels, especially with the name of the main character and the set-up of the world. But Dekker’s books were very spiritual, and seemed to mix thriller/mystery with fantasy in a way that I had never seen before and that I really enjoyed. Big influence.

-Ursula LeGuin’s “Tombs of Atuan”: I know it’s a cycle, but I haven’t read the whole thing. We read “Tombs” for a class I’m taking and I loved it. Ged’s beautiful speech to Tenar on the last few pages really struck a chord in me. I loved her symbolism, and the layers of depth and richness she incorporates into the theme. Her writing style is also lovely.

-Madeleine L’Engle’s “A Wrinkle in Time”: Although the ‘theology’ can sometimes be a little confusing/ecumenical/modern, I love the idea that ‘love conquers all’ that she presents as the driving theme in the book. The fantastical journey through time and space presented a lot of interesting and lovely images, and the horrifying descriptions of the villain, “IT”, did what they were supposed to and made me shiver.

I could list other books, but these are probably the ones that stick out the most in my mind.

=) Let me know what you all think!


On the New “Pope Francis”…

In light of all this buzz about the ‘Pope’ resigning, and the new “Pope” taking his place…I have a few questions. Not to sound like Luther (when he falsely maligned the Vicar of Christ in his day), but I do have some concerns. And so do many others, many able-minded Christians. 
How can I, as a conscientious Christian (young though I am)…how can I align myself with someone who prays in a temple with Jews and Muslims, when I know that we can only come to the Father through Christ? And what kind of example is that supposed to be to the faithful? How can I stand by and applaud someone who supports changing the words of Scripture to suit a theology that is NOT sound (‘for all’ instead of ‘for many’). The words of Christ were clear. Why would we change this? To suit an ecumenical theology that is not at all in line with what has been taught and known for centuries.

The Church is one, holy, apostolic and Catholic (universal). This Lutheran theology of ‘faith alone’, which was condemned centuries ago…why is this finding a place in what is supposed to be the true faith?
The difference between Luther’s complaints and mine are this: He protested the teachings of the True Church, the Church instituted by Christ, when a true Vicar sat on the Chair of Peter. The teachings then had been the same for centuries and did not change on account of his belligerent falsehoods.
Now the ‘Church’ which sets itself up as the Bride of Christ denies the very thing which should make her THE Bride of Christ: oneness! By proclaiming that there is salvation outside of the church (this is NOT referring to the true and ancient teaching of baptism of blood/desire) she denies her identity as the Bride of Christ, and cannot, therefore, be called such. Not only that, but she audaciously changes the liturgy, altering the Sacred Words of Scripture, indeed, the very words of Christ her Spouse, to suit a doctrine that has not been believed or condoned since the time of Luther, and certainly not by the Church, whom Luther attacked!
These are my two main complaints, the only ones I feel knowledgeable enough about to elaborate on, but two that nonetheless disqualify this ‘novus ordo’ abomination from being the true and spotless Bride of Christ, along with her pseudo-‘Popes’, who think it right and beneficial to the faithful to take up the yoke with non-believers, refuting outright the Way, the Truth, and the Life, without Whom there would be no salvation and no way to come before the Father.
This is why I cannot ally myself with Rome as it is in the present. If it were the true Rome, the Rome of Christ’s institution, I would love her dearly. But she lacks at least one of the four marks of the true Church (oneness), and therefore I disown this abomination as a usurer and a false church.