Last time, in Part 1, we covered Christian upbringing out in the country, and opined on a possible connection between morality and rural or urban locations. In the continuation of my interview with author Paul Hair, we talk Christianity, child rearing, and books worth reading.
Where I left off, I had just diagnosed Paul’s upbringing as “sheltered.” He disagreed, and went into some detail. We’ll pick up there:
PAUL: Public school exposed me to the world and worldly ways.
So I really didn’t experience culture shock when I hit the world…with one exception: professing Christians weren’t necessarily all that Christian outside of church (and this is what I meant when I mentioned my one major shock was sort of connected to Christianity). I continued realizing this throughout my 20s and even 30s. I think by my late 30s I fully realized that the people I worshiped next to in church weren’t necessarily the allies I thought they were. This isn’t to say I view fellow churchgoers askance; only that I do not assume that the person to my right and to my left believes what the Bible and God teach.
HANK: I’ve discovered through experience that most self-proclaimed Christians don’t study or believe the Bible. IOW, they don’t study or believe the teaching of Jesus. Therefore they don’t follow Christ, and therefore are not Christian. This is why I have begun calling them Churchians.
Of course, actual Christians will remember that we were warned a great apostasy was coming upon the Church. Message confirmed.
PAUL: In short, my upbringing was an advantage. It taught me the right way to live. So even when I chose the wrong thing as an adult, I always knew what the right thing was, which helped bring me back to the correct path.
As to if I would raise children the way my parents raised me: no—because it would be next-to-impossible to do so.
Our world is one where if your son declares he’s a girl you risk having the government take him away from you if you refuse to indulge that lie. Now imagine trying to raise a child in today’s world where you won’t allow him to listen to popular music, go to movie theaters, or watch disrespectful TV. Now throw in refusing him a cell phone and connectivity. On top of that, try spanking him or administering other types of corporal punishment.
How long until the government would take him away from me?
Perhaps the only place I would be able to try to raise children the way my parents raised me would be if I removed to some really remote place like Alaska, where even today the government would have a slightly harder than normal time accessing my children on a day-to-day basis. It might be possible to raise children like that without losing them. But even then it would be iffy.
That lifestyle is odd to the world; people view that as being a “Religious nut.” It wasn’t, of course. But, regrettably, I’ve let the world influence me too much instead of the other way around. I’ve lost a lot of those positive habits and practices, exchanging them for some worldly ones. That needs to be corrected.
But the only reason I know they need to be corrected is because of how my parents influenced me.
HANK: You just identified, in my opinion, a huge reason why the Church has become apostate: it has let the world influence it, rather than the Church influencing the world.
PAUL: Yes. And I don’t see much pushback on this.
Reading-wise (I didn’t forget about that part of the question), I read books that everyone knows (such as “The Hardy Boys,” The Island of the Blue Dolphin, Sounder, and so forth) and books that no one has heard of (such as “The Sugar Creek Gang” series of books).
My parents encouraged reading. Also, because my TV and video game time was limited, and because I didn’t listen to music or go to movies, that was a great thing to do when I was bored or when I needed a break from working and playing outside in the heat of summer or the bitter cold of winter.
School also provided me with an opportunity to read. That exposed me to Shakespeare, which I discovered I enjoyed. We read Beowulf, Chaucer, Austen, Dickens, and at least one of the Brontë sisters. Jane Eyre remains a book I enjoy. I also learned to like American literature. We read books such as Call of the Wild, Of Mice and Men, The Martian Chronicles, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and so forth.
For the longest time, Huck Finn was my favorite book. But then, as an adult, when I realized that teachers and scholars liked it so much because it was “an indictment of America,” I lost a lot of respect for it. I lost even more respect for it when I discovered that Samuel Clemons was a less-than-decent guy. (Yes, I know, we’re not supposed to judge books by the authors’ lives. If we did that, we wouldn’t be able to enjoy any book. Nevertheless, I remain firm in my reassessment of Huck Finn for my stated reasons.)
HANK: I wonder how old you were when the revelation occurred to you about Huck Finn. I’m guessing that, in addition to all their other villainy, your parents also raised you to (gasp! The horror!) love your country?
PAUL: Probably older than I should’ve been. Definitely in my thirties and perhaps mid to late thirties. And, yes, my parents did instill in me that patriotism is valuable.
Your question doesn’t address which books I enjoy as an adult but I’m going to throw a few in here anyway. I read both Frankenstein and Dracula, and liked them. (Specifically, I initially read the Bantam Classic editions of them. I was introduced to Bantam Classics by way of high school because the books are cheap. I’ve come to love these old books—the introductions to them, highly politically biased as they are, the smell of them, the feel of them, and the way they read.) Neither of the books is like any filmed adaptation available. Both books are much better. I later read the Cliff’s Complete edition of Frankenstein. Teachers hate Cliff Notes for good reason. But as an adult, when you’re committed to reading the actual book and not just the notes, Cliff Notes are quite helpful. And when you find a book that you enjoy, reading the Cliff’s Complete version of that book is an exceptionally enjoyable experience. It provides a wealth of background information and insight that expands the reading experience.
If you’d ask me to name my favorite book right now, I don’t know what that would be. In the past year I read A Princess of Mars (Penguin Classics edition—another good series) and liked that. But I’d probably go with A Light in the Forest by Conrad Richter. It’s a novella written in the 1950s. It’s an easy read but also very literate. Exceptional ending that is tragic and yet very satisfying.
HANK: I’m glad you talked about your current reading proclivities despite my failure to bring it up. It sounds like you rather enjoy “literary” fiction as well as some genre work. By the way, I also quite enjoyed A Princess of Mars. If you are ever again in a mood for some classic pulpy sci-fi, you might want to check out Armageddon: 2019 AD by Philip Francis Nowlan. It’s the original Buck Rogers novel.
PAUL: Armageddon: 2419 AD. I think I heard of that before but I wouldn’t have remembered it if you hadn’t mentioned it. I did some quick internet research on it and apparently it and The Skylark of Space by E. E. Smith both debuted in August 1928 in Amazing Stories magazine. The Skylark of Space is said to have originated the space opera genre.
TO BE CONTINUED…