Stewie Green
This is truly a book about doubt seeking understanding. It is a great read for those suffering from the questions that the historical Jesus debate has raised regarding the place of the gospels in understanding what Jesus was really saying (and doing) and how that should impact us theologically today. Not all the questions get answered, but it's pretty clear that Allison does not think he has all the answers either.
Pros:
I liked his honesty and how forthright he was about his beliefs and doubts.
I appreciated the writing style. It was accommodating but not dumbed down.
He has an openness to a lot of things that many scholars/historians tend to dismiss off hand - and he argues for them fairly.
The last chapter is really the best.
Cons:
I would have liked more discussion on how to move from the historical to the theological at a practical level as well as at a church level.
My daughter loves these books. For those with kids wondering about age/suitability: she's seven, she reads it by herself, and she understands what's going on in the story but needs help with some of the words. I think it's pretty spot on for her: challenging enough to improve her reading but easy enough that she's not frustrated when an uncommon word pops up (for her age she does have an above average reading level). So I'd suggest 7 - 9 years old for these books.
She read this one first and loved it so much that I bought her the entire series (found it very very cheap). She has since read the first three books and is into book 4. She loves the characters (I think George is her favorite) and the adventures. This series has done a fantastic job of introducing her into the joys of reading!
And for that reason I'm giving it 5 stars.
I came to this book ready for Brian McLaren to tell Christian denominations around the world, in the interest of a missional spirit, to open up their hearts and minds and accept others who differ from them. But that is not what this book is.
This book is something else. But, please, don't ask what this might be, I have no idea.
I bought this book for the subtitle: Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed- yet hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.
But it turned out to be misleading. I understood it to mean, “you can't label me”, because my faith is influenced by different traditions. And it kind of means that. But ... but when we get to sections that McLaren has fewer agreements with, (like fundamentalist, calvinist, evangelical, and protestant) he is forced to offer a redefinition in order to label himself that. And these aren't small changes: TULIP for instance, is unrecognisable, and few Calvinist would convert to the new TULIP. Not very generous.
So, by redefining the traditions of others, Brian does not create A Generous Orthodoxy, but only a different one. His. There is still a lot to admire here: He stands up for (an) orthodox belief, he insists on the importance of orthopraxy, and he separates out the garbage from the good stuff in traditions. But even then, that last one is a subjective call: He clearly doesn't like the penal substitution view of atonement, and to some that is the only “Biblical” view.
So we end up with a bit of a mess, and a (generally) unhelpful book. McLaren picks the distinctives he likes and discards the rest. And where there is little to like? He completely redefines the tradition. It's basically a theological smorgasbord (with some added home cooking). The problem being that he thinks that his more diversified smorgasbord (there's a bit from every cuisine, not just Chinese) is more generous because it's more diversified, but that isn't true, the size hasn't changed much, only the options.
He does a good job with the basic premise of the book (the search for authenticity is an unproductive one) but he gets side tracked with modernity and consumerism. Ultimately a strong beginning doesn't vindicate this book which has some great insights, but his conclusions are disappointingly shallow and nihilistic.
He advocates a sort of complacent consumerism as an (ultimate?) good and the meaning of life as some willingness to adapt to “progress” or the future. I found his line of thinking, especially in his conclusion nihilistic and rather self-contradictory to the rest of the book. For example, part of his attack on ‘authenticity' is that it is consumer culture run amuck, but that losses all credibility when consumer culture is what's left standing when the smoke clears anyway.
Borrow it from a friend or take it out from the library, the first 3 or 4 chapters are worth the time.
I enjoyed it quite a bit more the second time around (12 years later), having the internet handy was a huge help in figuring out the nautical terminology.
What lacks in plot is made up in a slow but solid character and relationship development between Jack and Stephen. I'm eager to find and read Post-Captain now ...
I found the joker origin story to be unnecessary and underwhelming. The beginning and the end which acted as a bridge were the best parts, and I think served as a clue to an otherwise ambiguous ending.
maybe I'm just not a fan of the genre but other than Stories of Your Life, none of the stories in this collection were that great. second best was Tower of Babylon which was a fun concept but I'm not sure the twist worked (trapped inside torus world?).
Understand could have been great if the author had the diction to write in a style of a super intellectual egomaniac who didn't care what normals thought. but the story was just a blowhard bragging about his abilities (in mostly high school grad level vocab - oh yeah, he's SUPER smart!).
The worst: Seventy-Two Letters, which was a convoluted mess with a story that went nowhere
like I said, maybe SF isn't my thing, but these stank.
I don't know whether to give the book 3 or 4 stars. It's very drawn out but very interesting for the first 600 - 700 pages but it ultimately disappoints in the end because it feels like Clavell didn't know how to end it.
The end is basically the thoughts of one of the main characters on how he would like the story to end - nothing about the actual story signaled an ending. It's like he hit his quota of pages and then wrote the ended. Which for me ruined the whole book.
Good book, bad ending.
The Good:
The art is nice and my kids LOVE looking through it
I like how they go through God's promise from Adam to Jesus
It's well written, suitably simplified and easy to understand.
The Bad:
I read this book to my 3 and 4 1/2 year old. I didn't find it to be age appropriate. There are some violent stories told that I didn't feel my kids were ready for.
None of Jesus' stories told (No parables at all!)
Recounts None(!!) of Jesus' teaching (that doesn't directly tie to being saved). No Beatitudes. No Sermon on the Mount.
Eco's writing is superb and exciting to read. Unfortunately one can read the first 50 pages then the last 50 pages and has basically read the whole book.
I liked the premise of the book and the ideas that it explored more than I liked the book itself, which makes the book hard to review - the idea is better than the execution - or at least it's conclusion. The characters seem flat and static, the city seemed lifeless but for a few people here and there, and the end was something of a cop-out. The thing that kept me reading was the central premise.
A must read for science fiction lovers, but probably not everyone's cup o' tea
Rod thinks the world is turning against Christianity, and doing so quickly. For him, the writing is on the wall and further Christian “advancement” is - apart from Divine intervention - not a realistic scenario. According to Rod, it's been 1500 years since the church was ever in this situation in the West, and western churches are ill-prepared - both in terms of orthodoxy and orthopraxis - for the coming secular storm that will sweep anybody who is unprepared away.
Being a reader of Rod's blog, I came to this book knowing what to expect and it didn't let me down. This is a book that doesn't let the reader stay neutral on anything - you won't be allowed to reserve opinion, Rod is much too “in your face” for that (he paints with a very large brush - more like a roller, actually). And seeing as this is Rod's invitation into conversation about the type of stance, lifestyle and orthopraxis that Christians are meant to cultivate in post-Christian nations (I'm not American, so I'll plural that), it's perfect!
It's the conversations that matter; with Rod, while reading the book - and then on his blog as he discusses some of the criticism (and he does backtrack a little from the book in his blog); with the myriad of other Christians, writers, thinkers, heretics, saints etc who have all chimed in to rant or rave or offer their own “option”; and with our family and friends who we lent the book to, just to get their take on it.
Whether the book is right or wrong doesn't matter that much (and Rod obviously thinks he's right), what matters is that for the first time in - what seems like - a long time there is sustained discussion about what it will take for the church to survive in the coming secular storm (or mild secular gust, or the breeze is quite pleasant... etc) with its faith intact. The conversations are what's important because it means that at least people are thinking about the long term survival of the Christian faith and how their kids and grandkids will inherit it, along with its great traditions.
I think Rod succeeded in what he was attempting to do. Not detail a comprehensive plan on how Christians need to live their lives or give guru advise on living the best Christian life now but on prodding Christians to think, to take sides, and to do anything other than nothing - even if it means just talking about the issues at hand.
While taking a biblical studies course this odd idea was quite often assumed: each gospel was written to a select and isolated community who had their own struggles and conflicts which these gospels dealt with through the teachings and actions of Jesus. The absurdity (at least to me) that this remained most unchallenged and assumed left me looking for answers. This is the book I was directed to. It is both thorough and thought provoking. The thesis that John knew Mark is worth the price of admission! It's both controversial and worthy of strong consideration. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Gospel studies.