THE LIFE AND LEGACY....

Ok, I know it's not April yet but I just finished A Chance to Die and it's covered in post-in notes. I have to write my review now.

I had read the children's version of her biography entitled With Daring Faith way back when with some girls in my Sunday School class. I was impressed with Amy Carmichael and loved her daring doings. Years later, when I discovered the book A Chance to Die I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. I've been wanting to read it for about three years now and finally stumbled across the book in a used book store a couple of months ago. Elation!

Now I'm glad I bought it used.

Where do I begin? I eagerly leapt into this book only to find myself screaming over several passages and, like I said, making extreme use of the post-it note. I did wish to chunk this book across the room on multiple occasions and if you've gotten your hands on a copy of it, you know it's a book that could cause some damage if tossed, let alone directly aimed.

For one, I knew that Amy and I were entirely opposite of each other when I discovered that, "She hated exclamation points on a printed page. When her publishers arbitrarily inserted them in Things as They Are she was incensed. 'So fussy. They give an idea of overemphasis.'"

When I think of who I could compare Amy to, the name Bill Gothard springs to mind. Over and over again. From her views on women's clothing (never let the ankle show!) to her views on the potential separation of families in ministry. I think the most telling sentence in the entire book, and the one that makes me think of Gothard the most is on page 266 where it states, "Those who could not bring themselves to subscribe to the standard Amy believed she had received from God were, in her view, turning away from Him."

I can take an individual owning a different opinion than myself. There is plenty of room in the body of Christ for diversity of personality and talent. What I do not take kindly to is the insinuation that one person has been given great wisdom and insight, and if the rest of us do not follow suit, we are misguided and, perhaps worse yet, nominal Christians (a phrase she seemed someone keen on). There is no grace is such an opinion and I find there is little to argue against it with. I find it highly unfortunate in situations such as the Donhnavur Fellowship (otherwise known as "DF" and hereinafter referred to as "The Compound."). There were multiple opportunities for Amy to welcome outside help/missionaries/friends to help with the work. Who is to say what great contributions and advancements could be made in not just the education of the children, but the general health and well-being of them? As the book stated time and time again, there was no disagreement found in the Compound. Amy's word was law. Those who disagreed were asked to leave or left on their own accord. Strangely enough, she never seemed to find this unusual. "There is no instance on record of Amy's accepting another's guidance after she believed she had been given clear guidance in a matter." (page 352)

It seems clear from the book that she found females to be the dominate sex in the species. "It was often said that the men's work was spiritually at a lower level than the women's." (page 300) I think this attitude towards men is very telling in the example of the Indian who had been in the Dohnavur camp for awhile and asked another of the men whether "the men found it difficult to work under female authority." "One hundred percent of them, " was [Taylor's] reply. "But the women? Never, in all my wanderings, have I seen thirty or forty women live together in such harmony as I saw in the DF." (page 284) My mind boggles at the complete disregard given to the strength and wisdom of men. I find this utterly distasteful and a slap in the face of the men who came to over their skills and talents (in the hospital and otherwise) and were constantly curtailed by what Amy felt was right.

Now, before I go on (and I could go on and on and on) I should say that I find it completely comprehensible that God could and would give an individual such wisdom and insight as to carry out so great a work as Amy Carmichael did. I do not wish to downplay the benefits and blessings she brought to Indians, particularly the young girls. Her work was admirable. What I am bothered by is her complete disregard for the form and function of the body of Christ. There seemed to be little to no room for another individual's opinion, skills or talents. There seemed to be lack of consideration towards the feelings and/or callings of others. The amount of times the title "nominal Christian" was used towards people who weren't willing to, say, travel third class every where they went, is, quite frankly, appalling.

BTW, I do not begrudge her the desire to "go the lowly route" and travel third class. I would not begrudge anyone that preference, if that was what they felt they were called to do. Nor would I find fault with anyone who chose not to read novels. But to label another person "nominal" who chose the comforts of first class or chose to read a great novel is below the belt and uncalled for. That is what I find disturbing and I'm unable to appreciate many of her works as a result.

I also stand staunchly opposed to her views on separating a husband and wife who were either once called together or separately to the ministry. The book gives two examples of such a thing. On page 299 we are told the story of an Indian couple who were separated, at first, due to adequate housing. This arrangement was initiated by Amy. The family remained separated for the rest of their lives. The running phrase was, "Nothing but the king's business." I would argue that if a person marries, part of that King's business is remaining faithfully devoted to the person God gave to you to be with. To forsake them for another person's idea of what is right or wrong for you is just plain hogwash. If married the husband is to love the wife an the wife to respect the husband. A couple can never learn to do this if they are permanently separated. There was another story told of a couple that ministered within the Compound when the wife decided to take their young child back to England for his education. Once in England, for whatever reason, she decided to stay and asked for her husband to join her. Amy thought such a request was ridiculous as she did not wish to lose the husband to the work at hand. She encouraged him to stay. The missionary board over him commanded his immediate return to his wife. Amy felt the man had been given no choice although she regretted him going. This is unimaginable to me. To think it right and proper to separate a husband and wife, a child and father?

I have many more post-it notes to go and a few more good rants, but I shall stop here without getting into education, the idea of exposing the children to outside influences so as to build up their maturity in Christ, and/or her views on personal prayer requests. Needless to say, I did not see eye-to-eye with her on any of these matters.

Am I grateful for her work in India? Yes. Do I think it was an admirable life's choice? Yes. In and of itself I have nothing to say against it. What rankles is the fact that if you did not choose to see things as she saw them or do things as she did them, you were not viewed as "on the level", shall we say? I find it hard to admire an individual who is so close-minded so as to leave no room for the opinions and idea of others or, as the book mentioned, to doubt their calling. I can only imagine the frustration felt by those who considered themselves "called" to the work (who can say for sure?) who did not find a twin in Amy and were disillusioned to the work. I find that, at best, pitiable.

In short (haha) I did not like this book.

!!!!!!