I think I like Chesterton's non-fiction more than his fiction. This is (if I recall) the second book of fiction that I've read from the great GKC. I h...moreI think I like Chesterton's non-fiction more than his fiction. This is (if I recall) the second book of fiction that I've read from the great GKC. I have read more of his non-fictional work, and I like it more.
This book, like many mysteries, was a confusing ride. GKC's word crafting is gorgeous - at points, simply startling. He was a man who knew how to use language. He had a purdy mouth.
The story is full of murder, political intrigue, and interpersonal difficulties. The author worked in some scathing criticism of "Capitalism," as he saw it in his day. You know, the book was fun, but not super fun. Truth be told, when it comes to someone like GKC, if it ain't really, really good, it just don't match up with my expectations. I guess I just expect a great deal from GKC, and this book was, therefore, a slight disappointment. (less)
When I was thinking seriously about doctoral work (a half dozen years ago), I purchased this book and another called How to get a PhD by Phillips and...moreWhen I was thinking seriously about doctoral work (a half dozen years ago), I purchased this book and another called How to get a PhD by Phillips and Pugh. The latter was far superior to this book; thus, I don't recommend buying it.
It's organized chronologically, as if it's taking the reader through the emotional/intellectual/experiential ups and downs of the PhD student. This organization works well and reads easily. The authors adopted a chatty and informal tone that doesn't sit so well. Further, their observations, with only a handful of exceptions, seemed not far beyond the realm of common sense. They've included a number of historical anecdotes which are interesting, but not particularly helpful.
If you're looking for a solid introduction to and guide through PhD studies that is serious and packed with useful information, I'd avoid this volume.(less)
We borrowed this book (on CD) from some friends and listened to it in the van whilst traveling hither and yon. To my shame, it's the first Henty I've...moreWe borrowed this book (on CD) from some friends and listened to it in the van whilst traveling hither and yon. To my shame, it's the first Henty I've read. I have heard good things about Henty's work for a number of years, but this was my first experience.
I wish I could have given the book 3 1/2 stars, but I bumped it up to 4... I'm a nice guy.
It was a good story, packed with historical interests. The protagonist, Malchus, was quite lovable in a PG sort of way. He exemplifies many admirable character qualities. The downside, however, was that it made his character seem a bit flat: almost Ned Flanders-ish, but not quite. The story moved from one pond of action and adventure to another to another, to the point where young Machus's life seemed reminiscent of an episode of 24. The action portions of the book, however, were fun and well-told. The streams between those ponds of action, though, were not as pleasing. It would appear that Henty had a penchant for supplying detail, much detail, tedious detail. I think the book would have been better without it, but it was still a good book with it. My seven-year-old liked the book, so I'm sure we'll do more Henty. Maybe we'll even borrow some more from our friends!(less)
I was given this book by a non-Christian neighbor. I traded him reads. I gave him Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep, and he gave me this.
I have to giv...moreI was given this book by a non-Christian neighbor. I traded him reads. I gave him Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep, and he gave me this.
I have to give Mr. Duncan a hand on an energetic, well-written book. From a literary standpoint, it was a pleasure to read. It had me laughing out loud enough to irritate my wife. The characters came across as, for the most part, honest and believable. Sometimes I thought that the brothers' star qualities seemed a little over the top, but it still read well.
The title obviously alludes to Dostoevsky's famous book, a book that I've read but once, but that I loved. This tale of divergent brothers takes places within a home where the mother is a committed Adventist and the father is a committed baseball player. These varied influences bear exceedingly varied fruit in the lives of the children (four sons and younger twin girls). They all go off in different directions and mostly reap the whirlwind (similar, in this respect, to Dostoevsky's book).
Another similarity to the older D's book (I just notices that both Dostoevsky and Duncan start with "D"!) is the very critical tone toward a religious establishment. Actually, both authors are quite cynical toward the church. The main difference here is that the younger D seems quite jaded toward Jesus himself and toward the Bible. One of the tough parts of reading this book is the blasphemous tone the brothers take (and certainly the author, too) toward Jesus.
On the positive side, this book reminded me of what it can be like as a child sitting through church functions and worship that simply are not interesting or engaging, or are (far worse) hypocritical. It was a call to me to engage our children sincerely and honestly about the things of the Lord. So, that's a good take-away.(less)
I enjoyed this book. Fitzgerald's style is pleasing. I like the setting (the Lost Generation) a great deal. Interestingly, the characters were semi-li...moreI enjoyed this book. Fitzgerald's style is pleasing. I like the setting (the Lost Generation) a great deal. Interestingly, the characters were semi-likable, but mostly I'm pleased I don't know them personally. I'm glad not to be Jay Gatsby's neighbor. Fitzgerald did a good job capturing the destructive selfishness of his generation and sad paradox that, as they strove to move forward, they were inescapably losing ground. The last chapter was my favorite. Fitzgerald painted a haunting picture of the slow-moving and expansive Mid-West and of its children trying to make their way in the urbane East. (less)
I did a good deal of driving in the past week or two, so I downloaded a recording of this book from librivox.org. So, thanks for LibriVox!
First, the r...moreI did a good deal of driving in the past week or two, so I downloaded a recording of this book from librivox.org. So, thanks for LibriVox!
First, the reader was quite good, not exactly Jim Dale... but good. That's a big deal when listening to a book. If the reader's lame, it ruins the book.
The story itself was enigmatic for me. I have not read any reviews, so the ideas that follow are my own fairly basic reflections on the book. It occurred to me that, as Marlow penetrated deeper and deeper into the Congo, that the author was inviting me to think that he was pressing deeper and deeper into human nature. Leaving behind the modern, refined (European) world, he was driving back into unrefined, primitive humanity. The deeper he got, the darker and scarier it was. The anomaly in this heart of darkness was Mr. Kurtz. He was a white man who seemed to wield great influence deep in the jungle. It turns out that even this great white hope is a shame and a lie. It would seem, then, that no matter how deeply one looks into human nature, one finds nothing but darkness and horror. So far so good.
I enjoyed the frame narrative, but thought that, too often, the book felt like a travel log, which reduced my enjoyment of it. On the other hand, Conrad's style is glorious, as is his vocabulary. I hope to read more of his work.(less)
This little work was a pleasure to read. It consists of Augustine's thoughts on the Nicene Creed (faith) the Lord's Prayer (hope) and a short discours...moreThis little work was a pleasure to read. It consists of Augustine's thoughts on the Nicene Creed (faith) the Lord's Prayer (hope) and a short discourse on Christian love. It will serve as a good introduction to Augustine's theological thought.
For my part, I love Augustine's emphasis on the primacy of grace. His defense of the sacramental system is irritating, as it seems very weak. Finally, his take on faith and works is quite disappointing. He does not clearly distinguish between justification and sanctification.
There are a lot of things in this short work that will make the Christian's heart rejoice, and there a few things that are less than celebratory. By any account, this little "handbook" of theology is worth reading, for Augustine is always worth reading.(less)
I'm just finishing this book for the third or fourth time. Chesterton blows my little mind. He has such wonderful insight into what it is to be human....moreI'm just finishing this book for the third or fourth time. Chesterton blows my little mind. He has such wonderful insight into what it is to be human. I think of him as a humanist that was a Christian. One of my favorite lines in this book is that "what is valuable and lovable in our eyes is man--the old beer-drinking, creed-making, fighting, failing, sensual, respectable man." For Chesterton, man is incurably an idealist, a romantic, a thinking, feeling, paradoxical being. However, what is most human about humanity, what makes man man is that he's a dogmatist. Man is the only created being that is necessarily drawn to generate a philosophy of life.
In this book Chesterton attacks those who either deny that such a philosophy exists or can exist and/or offer a philosophy that is inadequate. One of the difficulties of this book (and the reason I give it four stars) is how intimately tied it is to late 19th- and early 20th-century people and ideas. Thus, if one is really interested in understanding Chesterton's criticisms in this book, one will likely end up doing some remedial work on men like George Bernard Shaw, H.G Wells, George Moore, and others, and on such movements as Aestheticism, Neopaganism, and a host of other unsavory isms. However, with a little Google research or simply an open window to Wikipedia, most of these things can be adequately pieced together, and, thus, Chesterton's judgments will be understood more fully. All of this work will pay off handsomely, as many of these ideas are still flying around today (especially on university campuses!).
One final word about Chesterton's style: it's like totally rad. It is just downright pleasing to read his words. It is not just that he has a powerful command of humor and paradox, it is that he knows how to turn a phrase. He knows how to make words dance and sing. He is worth reading simply for his style. This book is full of deep insight which is communicated in glorious prose. (less)
My friend, Bob, tossed this book at me a few years back. I finally read it and enjoyed it a good deal.
I have only read one other Sci-Fi type novel (D...moreMy friend, Bob, tossed this book at me a few years back. I finally read it and enjoyed it a good deal.
I have only read one other Sci-Fi type novel (Dune), which I have to admit that I liked more (actually, far more) than this book. (Oh, yeah, I also read Dune Messiah, but it simply did not rock as hard.) As to Mote, it took me about 200 pages really to get into it, which is far too long. However, once the alien action kicked in, I thought it was fascinating. I really enjoyed how it turned from meet-the-aliens Sci-Fi to a political plot in the last hundred pages. Now that we've met these aliens, what in the world are we supposed to do?!
I don't doubt that there are a whole host of things that I missed in this book, unread as I am in this genre. Even so, overall, it was a good read. 'Nuff said.(less)
This little book contains Westminster's Directory for Public Worship (well worth reading) and two essays. The first essay is from Sinclair Ferguson, w...moreThis little book contains Westminster's Directory for Public Worship (well worth reading) and two essays. The first essay is from Sinclair Ferguson, which addresses the Puritan world in which the Westminster Assembly did its work. The second essay if from Mark Dever and concerns Puritan preaching. I found the first essay interesting and informative, but the second a bit dry (though also informative). This book would be much better if it also had essays on Puritan liturgical theory and practice beyond preaching. (less)
What's good about The Last Jihad (TLJ)? It is fun to read, for it moves along at a good clip. The characters are interesting and not flat. The action...moreWhat's good about The Last Jihad (TLJ)? It is fun to read, for it moves along at a good clip. The characters are interesting and not flat. The action is exciting and even a little gory. It has some overtly Christian stuff in it, but isn't preachy.
What's not so good about TLJ? Rosenberg's method of telling a story is scattered. He likes to have little soundbites (even as small as a page or less) on one part of the story, then skip to another soundbite, then again to another. This style is, to me at least, quite irritating and can be confusing. What's more, this book (though an interesting take on politics in the Mid-East [and the US's involvement in them]) offered me no profound opening into the culture or political attitudes. It focused mostly on the Americans; it might have been far more interesting if more focus was put on the other points of view represented in the book.
So, altogether, I give it three stars. It is fun, but nothing special nor worthy of the many must-read lists (Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding). (less)
This was a good little read, which has the advantage of being very concise and direct. It was written to Emperor Charles V on the eve of the Diet of S...moreThis was a good little read, which has the advantage of being very concise and direct. It was written to Emperor Charles V on the eve of the Diet of Speyer (1544). This tract was written as an apologia for the Reformation. What was going on in the sixteenth century that made reformation necessary? I think Calvin lays out a case that it was quite necessary, and that the only course of action open to the Christian who loved the church of Jesus Christ was to support the Reformation.
What will be most surprising about this work is how heavily some issues factor into Calvin's reasoning. You might expect him to focus on sola scriptura or sola fide. These issues simply do not get much attention. Instead, Calvin focuses on the abuses in worship, prayers, and the Sacraments. This, I think, should be quite instructive for us. Too often, we place a great stress on theological purity, but scarcely think about purity in the corporate action of the church. We should have done the one without leaving the other undone. Let us serve our Lord by pressing forward toward excellence in all areas of life. (less)
I can't remember if I read all of these stories or not, but I do recall really enjoying a couple of them. "Family Happiness" stands out as a real winn...moreI can't remember if I read all of these stories or not, but I do recall really enjoying a couple of them. "Family Happiness" stands out as a real winner... maybe it should have been called "Family Unhappiness"!(less)
I read this one back in 2002, I think. As I recall, this was one of my favorite of Tolstoy's books. Being his last published fictional work (again, as...moreI read this one back in 2002, I think. As I recall, this was one of my favorite of Tolstoy's books. Being his last published fictional work (again, as I recall), which was published so that all the sales proceeds would go to support the "Spirit Fighters," a group of Christians that were then persecuted under the Tzar, the books is highly critical of Russian society and especially the Russian Orthodox Church. I recall loving it.(less)
I read this back in the 2001 or 2002. I give it four stars as I recall it to be a wonderfully written story about important things, e.g., love, hate,...moreI read this back in the 2001 or 2002. I give it four stars as I recall it to be a wonderfully written story about important things, e.g., love, hate, fidelity, and infidelity. (less)
This is my first contact with Alexander Schmemann. I am quite sure that I'll make some time to explore him further, for I found this little book to be...moreThis is my first contact with Alexander Schmemann. I am quite sure that I'll make some time to explore him further, for I found this little book to be both gloriously illuminating and but also a bit scary.
As to the illumination, Schmemann proposes a view of the world that is enormously compelling. He sees the world "sacramentally." I think what he means by that is that the world is God's creation and is both to manifest his presence and also to be fellowship with us. Sin, of course, destroys the whole sacramental aspect of creation and now leads only to death. The church, however, is the sacrament to the world. It is through the church that God manifests his presence to humanity and has fellowship with creation, thus fulfilling creation. This sacramental church function is wonderfully Christ-centered and is expressed and lived in the Sacraments (do note the capital S) of the church. I found all this to be wonderful and refreshing, especially because I saw significant aspects of Postmillennialism and Van Tillian apologetics woven throughout. Not to mention that Schmemann (with his insightful attack on Secularism) would be death on RADICAL two-kingdoms theology. All this is splendid.
But not all is splendid, for the book is also scary. Schmemann did not intend this book as an apologetic for his Eastern Orthodox views of the Sacraments (all seven of them). Rather, it is more a description or an elaboration. Schmemann did not set out to "prove" anything, but rather to set forward or present his ideas. Well, ideas are dangerous things. Just because an idea (or a collection of them) is compelling does not make it correct or true. Holding, as I do, the Bible to be the final word on truth and "leitourgia," I want to be very careful to weigh Schmemann (and everyone else for that matter) in the balance of God's very Word. Where Schmemann has captured and articulated God's truth, let him be our teacher. Where he has not, let God be true and every man a liar.
Finally, as I read this book, I saw Peter Leithart on about every page. Many of Pastor Leithart's criticisms in The Baptized Body, for example, are quite clearly traceable to Schmemann's influence (or at least so it seems to me). I mention that only in passing, not to paint Schmemann with a Leithart brush. I am quite sure that the discerning reading will benefit from Schmemann, even in he is opposed to Leithart's thinking. However, it seems to me that if one wants to understand Leithart better, Schmemann would be a good place to start. (less)
For me, this book, like Leithart's writings generally, was both a hit and a miss. Let's take it from the top.
Chapter one, "Starting before the Beginni...moreFor me, this book, like Leithart's writings generally, was both a hit and a miss. Let's take it from the top.
Chapter one, "Starting before the Beginning," was intended to clear "enough ground to move ahead" to discuss the biblical texts about baptism. This chapter seemed a bit choppy, as Leithart's hitting on different philosophical, ontological, and theological topics. It was intended to be controversial with section headings such as, "Why Sacraments Are Not Signs," "Why Sacraments Are Not Means of Grace," and "Why Sacraments Are Not Symbols." That said, I found the concept of Sacraments as rituals to be compelling and helpful. Sacraments can, however, be signs, means of grace, symbols, AND rituals.
Chapter two, "'Baptism' is Baptism," was very fine. Leithart is quite conversant with many exegetes. I think he shows with some conclusiveness that the great majority of the time the NT uses the term "baptism," it means regular water baptism. This is important point. Since the NT attributes such impressive things to baptism, many folks want to make "baptism" mean "spiritual" baptism. Leithart shows that this defensive tactic is not generally exegetically justifiable.
Chapter three, "The 'Body of Christ' is the Body of Christ," argues that when the NT refers to the church (or the Body of Christ), it generally means the historical, visible church. This chapter is a polemic against those who would want to import the "invisible" concept of the church into the NT text. Just like chapter two, the visible church is not ALWAYS in view in the NT, but it is usually in view. Again, Leithart examines many texts and interacts with various interpreters of those texts.
Chapter four, "Apostasy Happens," is where Leithart muddies the waters a bit. First, he pulls together quite a handful of warning passages against apostasy to show that apostasy does indeed happen. So far, so good. The problem comes when Leithart seems basically unwilling to grant that there is any ontological or spiritual difference between the temporary believer who falls away and ends up in hell, and the believer who, by God's grace, perseveres and ends up in heaven. He seems to want to hide in the grayness of the vast varieties of Christian experience, but he will not put his finger on a *real* spiritual difference between the one of perseveres and the who apostatizes. This is a problem. The Bible says that those who apostatize "were not of us" (1 John 2:19). They went out from us, but were not of us. If they had been of us, they would have remained with us. Thus, in one respect, the apostates were are part of us - they were baptized into the same body of Christ (the historic Christian church, the body and bride of Christ). They were sharers and partakers of the covenant mercies of Christ, just like us. BUT they went out from us, thus manifesting that they were not of us. This means that they were and are missing something that is essential to being one of "us." This is the thing that Leithart can't or won't put his finger on. I suspect that part of the problem is that Leithart sees "regeneration" almost exclusively in terms of the life of the age to come in general (not individual) terms. The "regeneration" is the new age in Christ Jesus (Mt 19:28). This, without doubt, is true. What's more, this sense of "regeneration" is almost entirely missing from most Evangelical thought, and is how the NT uses that specific word. It is not, however, all that Bible says about new life or being born from above. Individual people are born from above. Dead men are made alive together with Christ. There is a spiritual and ontological transformation that occurs in a person, when they are taken out of the kingdom of darkness and transferred into the Kingdom of God's dear Son. There IS an individual component in "regeneration" that Leithart seems quite slow to acknowledge. I think this slowness accounts for his unwillingness to put his finger on an actual difference between those who temporarily believe and those who believe unto salvation. The latter has been born from above, while the former simply has not. Both are *really* baptized into the body of Christ, baptized into the regeneration. Both *really* share in the covenant. The apostate shares in all of that grace unto his further condemnation, while the faithful one shares unto glorious salvation. The difference between those two, as they sit next to each other on the pew (before the one apostatizes - assuming that his apostasy is final), is that one has been born again and the other has not. Now, WE cannot see the difference as they sit there. WE must treat both men as covenant members and hold them to the standards of the covenant. But just because WE cannot tell the difference doesn't mean that there is no difference. The whole of it runs back to God's eternal electing love. The Lord knows who are his, and let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.
Chapter five, "A Tale of Three Servants," is a small parable illustrating Leithart's points above.
The Appendix, "The Sociology of Infant Baptism," was simply excellent. It was a penetrating look into the realities of covenant nurture. It gives us a view of what infant baptism looks like with feet. Covenant baptism doesn't just spin out there as an IDEA; it is the way of Christian life and nurture.
In a word, the book was good. Leithart mentioned in the preface that this book was hurried and unpolished. That seems quite true. Even so, it's a useful addition to the conversation about baptism. I'm glad that I read it. The appendix alone is worth the price of the book. (less)
I was thinking about this book recently. I read it twice a number of years back. First time I read it was immediately after college, so back in 2001....moreI was thinking about this book recently. I read it twice a number of years back. First time I read it was immediately after college, so back in 2001. I remember being fascinated by Tolstoy, W&P, and all things Russian; I still am, but to a lesser degree. As to W&P, I still love this book and think that, Lord willing, I will end up reading it a few more times before I shuffle off this mortal coil.
As to the book itself, who needs to speak of its stunning panoramic view of early 19th-century Russian life? Who needs to talk up the master story-teller, Leo Tolstoy? No one. This book and its author are rightly famous. One thing that I will mention, however, is Tolstoy's ability to capture a moment and a feeling so succinctly. This impressive skill is hard for me to describe, but I was taken aback by it not many pages into my first reading of this work. Tolstoy was able, in not many words, to summarize and communicate the impact of an action upon the emotions of everyone in the room. Part of Tolstoy's genius in communication, I think, is that the reader recognizes that he has himself been in similar situations and has felt the same way Tolstoy's characters do. I've already taken more words to describe this than Tolstoy does actually to do it. So, enough said. (less)
Loading...
