Science and Faith, by C. John Collins ★★★★★

This book must not be confused with the book “The Language of Science and Faith” by Francis S. Collins, a book that would not even be worthy of one star even though written by a highly “eminent” scientist. Jack Collins here produces a lay language masterpiece, originally intended to help homeschool parents discuss issues of science, creation, geology, evolutionary biology, the social sciences, the question of miracles, etc., from a biblical Christian perspective. Jack is completely effective, while not betraying the faith as Francis S.C. has done. This book supplements other books by Jack Collins, including “The God of Miracles” which is supposedly a more technical version of this text, as well as texts that I have previously reviewed on this site. Jack Collins has a masters in electrical engineering from MIT, as well as numerous other degrees, and now teaches Hebrew at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis. I happen to know him on an acquaintance basis.

Collins tackles a formidable enterprise in his endeavor to show that the Christian faith and much of what we learn as science are not in opposition with each other. The first two chapters of the book are a basic philosophical discussion of the intention of the book. Collins then undertakes to discuss the creation narratives with a scientific perspective, especially addressing his preference for viewing the days of creation as days in God’s time, not ours. He has a chapter discussing the problem of man’s fallenness in observing the world. He discusses the issues of God’s providence and miracles in the face of the post-Hume worldview of the impossibility of miracles. He even includes a chapter on environmentalism and how Christians should view the world. Subsequent chapters deal with the age of the earth (he is in the “old-earth” camp), evolution and the development of animals. Two chapters are devoted to the defense of intelligent design. He concludes with thoughts on the social sciences. Finally, the book is ended with a discussion of the culture wars and our approach to the sciences. Though the entire book was excellent, the last two chapters were the best, and it is worth sticking with Collins to the end of the book. He especially notes how Christians have been in bitter attack against each other over minor differences in their view of the entire creation scenario.  About the only thing I wished he would have discussed would have been flood theories, the tower of Babel incident (especially since Collins is a philologist), and some of the other Biblical miracles that often come under attack by the scientific community (eg., Jonah surviving being eaten by a big fish). This book is one of the must-reads for anybody strongly engaged in the sciences to help form a Christian basis for their scientific thinking.

Historical Theology, by Gregg Allison ★★★

Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology text is deficit of any historical context. This is a serious deficit to an otherwise excellent systematic theology textbook, and Allison attempts to provide in this text what Grudem left out. Each chapter is arranged topically following the chapters in Grudem. This creates a textbook of historical theology that has strengths but also serious weaknesses. Oftentimes, a theological discussion demands the environment of multiple topics, such as the Christological controversies of the 2-4th centuries which cannot be discussed void of the trinitarian controversies. This leaves  a text that is only half complete. Allison’s text would not be good for a neophyte in historical theology, as he would loose the entire nature of many controversies. For this reason, JND Kelly’s text for early church theological developments, or  Schaff’s History do a far better job of giving the reader a flavor as to the content of  the historical debates. Allison’s text would work better if designed as an advanced text, but this would mean a very large section for each of the topics covered, accompanied by a large amount of repetition. Many areas are woefully incomplete, such as a very poor discussion of subordinationism, the iconoclastic controversy, and the rise of covenant theology, just to name a few. The text has strengths in that it is easily readable, and could act as a jumping off point for further reading. As a primary historical theology text, others do better when they stick to a chronological discussion rather than a topical agenda.

Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky ★★★★★

It’s been quite a few years since I’ve actually sat down to read a novel, and I’m not exactly sure why I chose Dostoevsky or this book, but I’m grateful that I did. This book was read on the Kindle. It is the story of a student-intellectual self-driven to poverty, and then committing a double murder. Most of the book engages in his thoughts and actions in the weeks after the incident until he finally breaks down to turn himself in. The book moves quite slowly most the time, with the necessity of reading through quite lengthy dialogues and monologues. Yet, there is a sublime virtue in this book that truly makes it a great novel. Dostoevsky is a complete master of the art of describing pathos. One reads in a cold sweat. One feels guilty even though not the criminal. The reader experiences the anger, depression, the dilutions, the decisional uncertainty of the characters. In most novels, you are a fly on the wall, watching the scene. In Dostoevsky, you are the character, you are in the brain of the character speaking.

Dostoevsky had an interesting upbringing, being born in Moscow in 1821, and dying in 1881. His parents died (perhaps his father was murdered) when he was young, and he scraped for himself. He almost was executed as a political criminal, spent 4 years in a prison camp in Siberia where he became a devout Christian, and spent the rest of his life writing novels in the realist mode, describing the true Russia of the time. Dostoevsky artfully brings up topics of the basis for morality, the existence of God, and the Christian faith. The point of sanity in the sea of insanity through this novel is the few characters with a Christian faith, such as Sonya. Raskolnikov’s sanity exists only in the last paragraphs of the book as he inquires of the Christian faith. The book ends as though there would be sequel.

I’ll be reading much more Dostoevsky in the months ahead. I’m now working on The Brothers Karazamov and will then attack others, so sit tight.

Here is a book that I’ve suggested others read, yet have not (until now) read the book. It is the second book which I read on a Kindle.

This book is a truncated autobiography of Chuck Colson, known of Watergate fame. It details his rise to power within the Republican organization through low-handed politicking. Eventually, he was chosen to be one of the special consuls for Richard Nixon. He served through Nixon’s first term, and then intended to go back to his law practice when the Watergate scandal hit the fans across the country. During the time between Nixon’s second term and the Watergate scandal, pressure on Colson eventually led him to seek counsel from a friend when he became a Christian. Colson eventually was convicted, and served 7 months in federal prison, before getting released to then focus on prison ministries.

There are many aspects of this book that can be addressed. Certainly, Colson offers his own running commentary on his view of Nixon, Watergate and crisis that occurred. Much of the book is Colson coming to know himself, and realizing that he had a tendency to take control of matters. His fall from (political) grace forced a rethink of his own political arrogance. In this regard, Colson was truly moving. Colson’s change of heart to truly desire God’s will is none other than miraculous, and a testimony that we all must take to heart.

Colson always professed innocence in the Watergate events. I tend to find his testimony as believable. Apparently, he had no clue as to what happened. Colson ended up being the first person to plead guilty, which he did because he felt he did obstruct matters of investigation of the Watergate event, done mostly to protect the president. Oddly, Daniel Ellsberg, who was giving away top secret state information got off scott free.

It is a little bothersome that by the end of the book, Colson ends up as a pentecostal. I certainly hope his thinking has matured a bit since his release from prison. He also tended toward social do-goodism, defending prisoners against an unjust prison system. Sadly, this has two sides, since too often punishment in prison is not commensurate with the crime committed. Colson has a tendency to focus on wrongful imprisonment, when typical imprisonment for many is only too kind. Colson does make a good argument against the explosion of the prison system in our country, yet offers too few of suggestions as to how to really fix that.

Being a lawyer, Colson goes way too soft on addressing the problem of law and justice in our country. He tends to suggest that there are a few bad lawyers that ruin the soup. In reality, the entire legal system is rotten to the core, and Colson simply won’t admit it. His own conviction was based on the most eminent lawyers in the land, who did NOT make the judgment against Colson based on either evidence or due process of law, but rather out of pressure from a small but very vocal public sentiment. Unfortunately, with the  loss of constitutionalism in our court system, we can only expect this to get worse with time.

I agree with Colson in that the prison system is way overused, and tends to serve contrary to its mission, which is to reform the inmates. Supposing that Colson was truly guilty of his crimes, the best punishment would have been 39 lashings, total disbarment, and obligatory public service of 7 years duration at minimum wage and no diminishment of sentence based on good behavior, though extension of sentence based on bad behavior could be enforced.

Colson was kind on the news media. The Watergate scandal was essentially a creation of the news media. Ellsberg should have been behind bars and is not, thanks to the liberal press. It is no wonder that the large news services are dying. I’ll shed no tears for CNN or MSNBC. Colson was kind on liberals. He tended to feel that anybody that called themselves brother were acceptable. Yet, content of belief does matter. I hope Colson has learned this since his conversion. Those belief structures will order our thinking as well as behavior. For Colson to find vehement enemies that suddenly become best friends once discovered that they are Christians is a terrible witness of the “worst enemy-best friend” people, regardless of how “spiritual” they conducted themselves.

So, I truly enjoyed reading the book, but gave the book only three stars for lacking the depth it could have had. Colson is a delightful writer, but I do not intend to read any more of his books, which I understand are quite a few at this time. I am most delighted at his conversion to the Christian faith, and see in Colson’s story a common tale that reflects God calling us to Him, and NOT us accepting Him. I wish that Colson could have seen that in his conversion. I’m glad that God saves us in spite of ourselves, and Colson stands as a most visible example of this truth among every one of us that call ourselves Christian.

This is the first book that I have read in electronic format, on a Kindle. I have mixed feelings about the Kindle, and then comments on the book itself.

The Kindle is a great idea. I received the Kindle Touch about a month ago. I really didn’t wish for a microscopic keyboard and heard that there were problems with the color edition of Kindle, so opted for the Touch. There are problems with it. 1. The touch mechanism doesn’t always work consistently 2. if you accidentally bump the screen or try to clean off the screen to read it better, it will react. 3. since you always have to touch the screen to read, such as with changing pages, the screen is always being made dirty again. 4. After reading Foxe, the Kindle has shown a drastic reduction in speed, and multiple crashes, almost like it got a virus.  5. There is no mechanism for reading in dark circumstances, as you need an external light to see the screen.  6. Maneuvering through a book that you are reading can be a challenge, especially if the table of contents is not well constructed. They don’t have a reverse function like surfers have, so that you can’t instantly go back to where you came from.  The advantages of the Kindle are 1. It’s a great idea, 2. when it works, it has great functionality, like keeping track of where you are in a book across all systems. My solution to the Kindle dilemma is to use Kindle on an Apple apparatus. I am just waiting for iPad3 to come out.

Now, for Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. I didn’t realize until I contacted my book resource David Davis that the original Foxe is about 7000 pages, and anything we read is a serious abridgment of that text. In addition, since Foxe died in 1587, any details after that are additions to his book. Thus, the hardcopy edition of Foxe’s Book and the Kindle edition do not resemble each other at all in their organization. Strangely, Wikipedia, and most Google internet sources don’t clue you in to this. The Kindle edition has multiple stories up to about 1830, many of which are quite rambling. At the end are very brief biographies of the main reformers, which are too brief to be of any value. The greatest value of Foxe’s Book is in his discussions of the martyrdoms around the time of bloody Mary. There is prolific language against the Papists and popery, all of which should NOT be forgotten by the present day church. The Romish church has not changed significantly since the 16th century, and we shouldn’t forget that. The Pope and his minions have not made a kinder gentler church that has learned its lessons. It is a superb defense of the notion of protestantism.

The book and its “editions” has left out much, including Savaranola, the Scottish martyrs, and persecution of the church by protestants on protestants. The revisions include lengthy details of the Quaker movement, which was unnecessary, and lengthy details of a person in Lebanon who was under pressure to conform by the Marionite church. The quality of the additions to John Foxe are low, and should have been left out. So, read the book, but not the Kindle edition.

I had met Baruch Maoz at church a number of years ago, and found him to be quite thought provoking regarding the nature of the Messianic Jewish movements. Maoz is Jewish, grew up in Israel, and now is retired, though served many years as a pastor and evangelist to a Jewish Christian church in Israel. I decided to read this book after noting how some Christians are quite enamored with things Jewish, many of whom incorporate Jewish traditions into a Christian worship service, and speak Hebrew phrases in an attempt to have a Jewish flavor to the worship. Maoz notes that there is a wide range of Messianic Jews, many of whom are actually Gentiles, to some who would not even call themselves Christians, to a few that would disavow the doctrines of the trinity.  Maoz notes several things.

1. Messianic Jewish movements often have the wrong focus, being more concerned about Jewish tradition than on the Lord Jesus himself.

2. Jewish tradition, especially in Gentile hands, is often seriously confused, misplaced, poorly performed, and oftentimes insulting to real Jews, of whom this movement is attempting to reach.

3. Rabbinic Judaism is to be adamantly repudiated, since it places focus on a works righteousness, and is definitely not Biblical.

4. Well intentioned Messianic Jews often do more harm than good by forcing a Jew-Gentile split, yet failing to adequately reach Jews. As evidence, it is noted that most Jews that came to Christian faith did it outside of Messianic movements.

While reading this book, there were many times when I wished to give it only 3 stars. It is very poorly edited, and often one will find incomplete sentences. The content and arguments in this book are superb, Maoz is highly competent, reformed, and exceptionally knowledgeable in matters of Christian faith and Judaism. This is a book that many should read and take to heart. Maoz skillfully focuses the attention away from traditional Jewish cultural practices, to focus on the Bible alone to guide worship and Christian practice.

The prophet of doom and gloom waxes eloquent as he describes the many variables that will eventually lead to the downfall of America. Mr. Buchanan takes a very long and hard look at the many factors that have changed in society from the 1950′s when the USA was at its pinnacle of power to today, when even the smallest nations may do as they please contrary to the commands or wishes of the United States. In the course of the book, he has chapters that 1. first paint a picture of what’s going on, 2. describes our loss of faith in God and the break-up of our churches, 3. focuses in on crises within Roman Catholicism that is weakening their stand in the US, 4. the loss of traditional white values and cultures and replacement by a nation of minorities, each with their own subcultures, 5. the international failure of the West and Japan/China to have children leading to the poorest nations and Muslim nations to ascend, 6. details of how the quest for “equality” has been so muddled that its only result is an overall loss of freedom, 7. how diversity as an ideology is confused thinking and is absolutely contrary to unity, and how this so-called quest for diversity has destroyed much of American cultural infrastructure, 8. internationally how each autonomous group now desires autonomy and nationhood, causing massive destruction of many of the nation-states of the world, 9. more details on the loss of white America, but in particular, Buchanan focuses on how the Republican party has been painted as the “white” party, even though the Democratic party has been the most racist of the two parties, 10. a focus on foreign policy and how it’s failed us in the last 50 years, with an emphasis on our policy failure with NATO and the former Soviet Union and our need to get out of acting as the world’s defender. The last chapter is spent with Buchanan suggesting what we could do to restore hope to our nation. Buchanan spends much time 1. discussing the issues of import tariffs, of which he makes an excellent point that it is vital to balance our trade status with what our nations do to us, 2. elaborating how the illegal immigrant issue has eaten the heart out of America, though illegal immigrants tend toward a more conservative base than the liberal think-tank that fuels national policy, 3. hinting at how judicial activism in the supreme court has destroyed our true sense of freedom. There are only a few points that I would emphasize differently from Buchanan. Buchanan realizes the importance of national faith in the Christian God, yet fails to say that precisely, discussing instead our loss of community values and church-going. The Scriptures, in discussing the reason for the fall of Israel and Judah, have a stronger focus on the loss of personal morality and loss of orthodoxy among the religious elite. Buchanan notes that the Catholic church rose to prominence in the early 20th century, and then took a downward course in the 1960′s, blaming much of that downward course on the decisions of Vatican II. On this, I would disagree completely with Pat, since the American loss of faith started (as pointed out well by Francis Schaeffer) at the beginning of the twentieth century. The rise of Roman Catholicism in the 20′s to 50′s  represents more a loss of faith and placation of the conscience by providing an easy religiosity, rather than a shift back to Rome for more traditional values. For the most part, Patrick Buchanan gets most everything correct, and this is a book absolutely worth reading to understand what is happening and what will happen to our nation and the world at large.

Bicycle Repair, by Rob Van Der Plas ★★★★★

This book, written by a bicycle aficionado in San Francisco, is in a very easy to read, casual style, with multiple illustrations. It is the best book in terms of illustrations of any of the cycle repair books I’ve laid my hands on. In some areas it is slightly deficit, such as in not encouraging the use of torque wrenches whenever possible or when advised by manufacturers. It also is not as comprehensive on the different brands of cycle components out there. There are chapters on items such as the repair of internal gear systems and coaster brakes. The clarity and methodical nature of the repair instructions earns it a 5-star rating. This is a worthwhile book to have in one’s cycle repair shop.

Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance, by Lennard Zinn ★★★★★

This book earns 5 stars but for a different reason than van der Plas’s book. The illustrations are hand-drawn rather than photographed, yet very well drawn. The book is much thicker and more comprehensive. Zinn is a bicycle builder in Colorado, as well as an editor for VeloNews. Using those skills, he holds a repair style more of what you would expect the best bicycle repair shop to have, following manufacturer’s recommendations. There are large charts in the back of the book for reference on torque wrench settings and other things. Zinn writes very well, and offers prolific sound advice for the care of the bicycle both in the shop and on the road. This book is also quite worth having in a cycle shop library.

Bicycling Magazine’s Guide to Bike Touring, by Doug Donaldson ★★★★

This book has a subtitle “Everything You Need to Know to Travel Anywhere on a Bike”. Actually, it is not a terribly comprehensive book on cycle touring, but written in magazine style, designed to hold a 30 second attention span. It is well written, interlaced with much humor. This book would be best for the early novice in cycle touring, the person who has never tried cycle touring before. It is a great introduction, and thus the four stars, rather than the 2-3 that I would have otherwise given it. The book did offer some advice unknown to me such as bicycle repair tricks in an emergency. Generally, it tended toward magazine style recommendations for tours and tended to recommend products advertising in Bicycling Magazine. It had lengthy advice for drafting (????, hello, this is touring, NOT road racing!!!!), exercises to do to get in shape (try just getting on a bike!), advice on picking a tour company (?, ok, sure….) and a lengthy chapter on nutrition, all of which seemed to be more filler material than good touring advice. Get the book if you have never tried cycle touring before, and you will be inspired. Otherwise, see below.

Bike Touring (A Sierra Club Outdoor Adventure Guide), by Raymond Bridge ★★★★★

This is the best bicycle touring book available, though not the most inspirational. Bridge writes in a straightforward but informative style. He provides the most comprehensive text, including numerous references to the internet and to other books on bicycling and related topics. The book is divided into three sections. The first paints the picture of what it means to cycle tour. In this section, he discusses the various types of cycle touring, including self-contained touring (camping out and doing your own cooking), as well as “credit-card” touring (staying in hotels and eating out everywhere). The second section is a comprehensive discussion of the types of equipment, beginning with the bicycle, discussing then bicycle components of interest, cycle touring clothing, repair tools, lights, locks, panniers and trailers, and camping gear. Finally, Bridge discusses in the third section the actual act of cycle touring, including route planning, and the style of self contained vs. supported (hotel) tours. There is a sizable resource guide at the end for additional books on cycling, bicycle repair, tour companies, map sources, etc. This book is well worth obtaining simply as a reference.

Adventure Cycle-Touring Handbook, by Stephen Lord ★★★★

This book is meant for the person who wishes to leave civilization and travel beyond the US/Canada or Western Europe and into the hinterlands of foreign countries. The book is divided into three parts, the first being an invaluable reference to planning such a trip, equipment, etc., etc. The second part provides recommendations for routes throughout the world, with a focus on Central Asia, South America and Africa. The first part are anecdotal tales written by various cyclists on their adventures in the greater world. This book has many inset stories and information pieces inserted throughout the text and written by different authors that provide personal experiences. After reading the book, I realized that I did not have an overwhelming interest in exploring Tibet, Outer Mongolia or Zanzibar on a bicycle. Should my mind change, this will be the first book that I consult.

Colossus, by Niall Ferguson ????

I had just reviewed another book by Niall Ferguson, and this book is actually quite complementary. The overall thesis of this book is that the USA is actually an Empire, and that that is a good thing. The first few chapters start with a history of the United States from the international perspective, showing how the USA has always stated a non-Empire status, while simultaneously behaving like an emerging empire. Even with statements from our recent presidents and some GOP presidential candidates that we are not an empire, Ferguson provides adequate details to show that they indeed are different from all other prior empires that the world has known, yet their very behavior in international politics is consistent with empire status. Ferguson then develops the theme of the Brjitish Empire, emphasizing its triumphs and failures as a world dominating force. Another recently reviewed book by me (The Rise and Fall of the British Empire) takes a quite caustic view of the British Empire. This book has a more balanced view, discussing how the empire status of the British was ultimately mutually beneficial to both England and the subject country. Most notably, the institution of the rule of law and honest commercial interchange was instilled in many countries that are now benefiting from that. The departure of the British often has led to greatly decreased GDP and oftentimes to civil war or catastrophes far worse.  Ferguson also delves into the negative side of empire, showing how England invested far more in foreign nations than they gained, ultimately leading to a diminished status of England in the world at large. He then discusses the positive and negative aspects of the USA as empire, specifically focusing on our near bankrupt status as a nation and the potential instability of both the European Union and the US economic situation. Yet he sees the need for a dominant force in the world that would promote the continuation of free trade and economic stability. Ferguson looks at matters nearly entirely from the viewpoint of an economist as ex-patriot Brit. Though he does briefly bring up the religious question of the loss of faith in Europe, he does not equate that in any way as being a potential harmful matter but merely as a fact of note comparing the difference between American and European society.  I would tend to be a bit hesitant to not attribute other factors as leading to the rise and fall of nations (see Isaiah 40:15-27). Thus, I would personally attribute the greatest danger of the USA is its loss of faith in the Judeo-Christian God.

Ferguson is a provocative read and very informative. I would recommend this book, though I do not entirely agree with everything he says. He certainly is quite thought provoking, and will certainly force one to rethink their stance of Empire, whether one comes from a liberal or conservative perspective.

The review reluctantly receives 5 stars in that I disagree with many of the suppositions and conclusions of the author. Yet, Ferguson makes a fascinating story of the money world that is quite worth reading. His writing style tends to lead to many thought provoking hours if one takes the time to consider the implications of money history. And, as the subtitle states, it is a financial history of the world. Ferguson presents six chapters with an epilogue questioning whether the financial world as we know it will persist. But, that question is not to be approached in this review, as I don’t have a clue. The six chapters neatly divide money history into 1. The history of stocks, 2. The history of bonds, 3. The history of central banks, 4. The history of the insurance industry, 5. The history of the mortgage market, focusing on the US, and 6. Globalization and its implications in the world of finance, including the role of the IMF and World Bank. Ferguson makes a good but not solid case against a gold standard in economics, though he never really challenges the gold standard as such. The strength of this book is that Ferguson is able to show how all monetary systems are not fool-proof, and highly subject to the foibles of man. Perhaps the world economic boon suggests that the economic system with corrections is the best that could be, though a serious crash, perhaps sufficient to enter the world into another dark age, might rule that out. My distress with Ferguson’s book is that he left much unanswered. How did civilizations such as Rome in times past build massive systems without stocks, bonds, derivatives and hedge funds? How was America able to be most successful in the pre-Jekyll Island days? Is it right that there is a massive surge in “money managers” that make ungodly sums of money for doing nothing but gambling? Shouldn’t money managers and corporate executives be held personally responsible for failures since the receive massive personal gain from success? I’ll leave those questions and many more to a subsequent book by Ferguson. In the meantime, go out and get a copy of this book to read-you’ll be glad you did.

This is the second book I’ve read by Jon Krakauer, the first being Into Thin Air, a story of a disastrous climb on Everest. Though Krakauer has a very likeable writing style, he is not always the best at contending for historical facts. The Everest climb story held some extremely slanted and monocular views of events that clouded an unbiased appraisal of what really happened on Mt. Everest. In terms of the Everest climb Anatoli Boukreev offered a much more believable account. Both of those books (Into Thin Air, and The Climb) have been previously reviewed by me. Krakauer makes similar editorial mistakes in this book.

Under the Banner of Heaven, according to Krakauer, was intended to be a critical historical review of the Mormon church. During his investigations, the book instead morphed into two intertwined stories, both complementing the other, of the development of the Mormon church, and using that history to offer insights into the murder of a mother and child in the heart of Mormon-land. The two main accomplices in the murder, the Lafferty brothers, committed the crime under the rationale that God gave them clear instructions to do so, based on their Mormon faith. While exploring the history of the Lafferty family, Krakauer necessarily unveils a large contingent of strict Mormons that are part of break-away sects that also practice polygamy. The details of these colonies, scattered throughout the Western United States, Western Canada, and Northern Mexico also bring to light the complex thinking that leads people in the Mormon faith to proclaim that God has spoken to them. After all, they are simply following the example of their leader, Joseph Smith. Many of the “fundamentalists” manifest an extreme political viewpoint that fits neither “right- nor left- wing” ideology, that of absolute freedom of the individual with limited government and extreme patriarchy ruling over an extended family.

This book has strengths and weaknesses. Krakauer is a poor historian in not adequately exploring the various interpretations and viewpoints to an event, before discussing why he chose a given viewpoint. Krakauer is superb at writing a good story, and, criticisms aside, does a very capable job of noting how bizarre the Mormon faith happens to be, and how quickly it can transmogrify itself to suit the needs of the moment, such as abolishing polygamy or accepting blacks into the eldership of the church. The story fits other readings that I’ve had of Mormon history, and it defies explanation as to why Mormons would hold so tenaciously to a belief system that hides its past and pretends it really doesn’t exist. This, in and of itself, makes the book very much worth reading.

Krakauer makes a mistake at the end of the book by trying to wax philosophical. His spiritual mentors, of whom he freely quotes, are Karen Armstrong and William James. Specifically with James, Krakauer accepts the notion of religious experience being nothing other than a psychological event. Yet, he (and James) fail to notice that all human experience is essentially psychological, including whatever scientific knowledge we may possess. Like the miracle worker who has events come true when commanded, the scientist notes that his theories lead to “events” that come true that furthers their faith in the religion of science. That is a dangerous road to take, because it deconstructs any possible experience of anything, whether or not you define it as sacred or secular.  The assumption is that since there are  ”quack” religious groups, all religious groups must be suspect. Even worse is the assumption that because there is not 100% uniformity of opinion as to truth regarding “god”, “god” must not exist or is at least unknowable. Similar arguments could be made against the sciences, since any disagreement suggests that ultimately even scientific truth is unknowable. Epistemological nihilism becomes the only truth. The underlying assumption in all of James statements is the God simply does not exist, or is absolutely and totally unknowable.  Thus, his arguments of the psychological nature of religious experience is a circular argument that offers no proof for or against God, nor for the veracity of the experience. Christian doctrine suggests that there is a connection between the “5th dimension”, or the “alternate universe” and ours, and in that alternate universe, a battle is raging with forces both good and evil, the good eventually winning. Religious experience could be encountered from either the good or evil forces, and the ultimate determination for the side may be evaluated through God’s word to man in the form of the Scriptures. Using Scripture as an ultimate reference point, the Mormon doctrines don’t stand, and suggest any religious experience of a Mormon nature be through the evil forces that wage battle against the good.

Krakauer spends a chapter discussing the issue of the insanity defense that Lafferty’s lawyers gave to prevent the execution of Dan Lafferty. This legal argument continues to rage. Public legal assumption is that any belief structures that extremely differ from normative must be proof of insanity. This denies the possibility of a person simply being evil. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Ze Dung, Pol Pot, and W. Churchill all must have been insane since they all lived the most desperately evil lives (though Churchill managed to maintain a sense of acceptability!). It is interesting that even in illiterate third world countries or among savages, a concept of insanity exists, and that insane people are clearly seen and identified without the aide of a psychiatrist.

The appendix offers Krakauer’s rebuttal to a response by a high ranking elder in the Mormon church to Krakauer. This elder appropriately identifies Krakauer’s weaknesses, yet fails to see his own dismal historical weaknesses. It is clear that the Mormon church will force an interpretation of history that best suits their own agenda, rather than the known facts of the historical events.

All in all, this is a good book to read. It is a good reminder of the consequences of reacting against the whole of society, as many I am personally acquainted with have tended to do. It is also a warning against the Mormon church, which appears quite innocent, yet there is something rotten in the church from its very inception, that troubles the church today.

Since then, I’ve slowly evolved into using only tea leaves. You can see my tea cabinet. Only a portion of the teas I brew are visible, and some are actually just using old containers.

I brew the tea in a white ceramic pot or cast iron pot, kept warm over a tea candle apparatus.

I use a Finum strainer for the tea. These are very nice, since you can remove the tea leaves after the appropriate infusion time, and can reinfuse the leaves quite easily. The lid also serves as a convenient base to prevent tea from getting on the counter.

At the office, I use a larger ceramic pot, with a hot water pot to boil the water.

Learning how to properly brew tea takes practice, experience, but a good book also gives one an idea as to techniques for making the perfect pot of tea. The book below also discusses the various types of tea, their origin and their differences. Generally, there are Chinese vs. Indian teas. Africa does produce some teas like Rooibos, which I’ve found to be quite distasteful. The Chinese/Indian teas vary from black, Oolong, green, flavored (like Jasmine), mixed (like Earl Grey), or moldy (like Pu-Erh). Pu-Erh tea is actually quite interesting, in that the 2-5 infusions are all quite good. The tea smells like a barnyard, but the taste is very nice.

The Tea Enthusiast’s Handbook, by M. Heiss and R. Heiss ???

This book is a good introductory summary for the tea lover. Happy brewing!!!

This is one of now many analyses of Der Ring des Nibelungen by Richard Wagner. Lee apparently is a Catholic priest, and these short essays were from radio commentary that he gave. This was read at the recommendation of a number of reviewers on Amazon.com. I found that Lee does an excellent superficial analysis of the plot, and suggests that the “deeper” meaning to be communicated in the operas is best seen on a psychological study of the Ring from the viewpoint of Wagner himself. Lee suggests that Wagner is attempting a Nietzschean twist on evolution, suggesting the death of the old gods, and an emergence of an enlightened mankind superior to our past. Having recently listened to Robert Greenberg’s analysis of the Ring as found in the Teaching Company recordings, I tend to agree toward Greenberg. Lee seems to idolize Wagner as a deep thinker. Greenberg instead views Wagner as the most profound of composers but simultaneously the most evil of all men whose ideology is repulsive. From what I know about Wagner, I think Greenberg is closer to the real Wagner. It is a pity that such amazingly beautiful music has a dark side to it, and must be listened to for the quality of the music. The underlying messages must be glossed over and the Ring watched solely for its superficial message, as Lee manifests in this short book.

This book was recommended to me by Dr. Lattin based on a World Magazine review, and it was a good choice. It is short, and can be easily read in 1-2 evenings. Brooks identifies that in America, there are essentially two types of people, 70% who prefer small government, free markets, and private enterprise, and 30% who prefer large government, socialism, and relative equality of incomes for all citizens. It is the 30% who seem to control government, media, and Hollywood. There are four chapters in this book. In the first, Brooks delineates the problem. Chapter two discusses how the liberals and media have it all wrong in discussing the cause for the economic downturns of the last century, showing how it was government and not “greedy capitalists” who caused the problem. Brooks doesn’t spare either Republicans or Democrats, and is particularly harsh on the statements and decisions of our current fool-in-chief, Barry O. Chapter 3 shows how working for a living rather than being on a government dole actually makes people happier, and concomitantly more productive. The last chapter offers a moral argument, that it is only right that one work for a living, and that forced government redistribution is immoral. While I agree with the global thesis of this book and most of the particulars, he fails only in not showing how our abandonment of God, religious structures, and Biblical moral framework has ultimately been the cause for America’s downturn.

This is probably the last evolution book that I’m going to read and review for a while. This compilations of essays were written by British authors, mostly as a response to Denis Alexander, and British counterpart to USA’s Francis Collins in advocating theistic evolution. The book was recommended by World Magazine as a top read of the year, so it made sense to complete my evolution reads with this text. In all, I appreciated the mixture of a strong Biblical response with the provision of a scientific defense for creation. The scientific data was a rehash of much that I’ve read in the past and recently reviewed volumes. If I hadn’t grown weary of creation vs. evolution texts I’d probably have given it a higher recommendation. I agree with World that this is a superb summary defense for a Biblical approach to creation/evolution.

Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary, by C. John Collins ?????

This book offers a detailed analysis of the first four chapters in Genesis in an attempt to bring clarity to our understanding as to the events of creation and the first few years of man on earth. Collins certainly possesses the necessary credentials, having an advanced degree in the sciences from MIT, as well as further M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees in theology and linguistics. I have heard criticisms of Dr. Collins, mostly related to him having abandoned a Biblical approach to Genesis, and having caved in to the the god of Science. Thus, the reading of this text was done in a critical fashion. I have found that the exact opposite of his critics is true. Jack Collins is a breath of fresh air in conservative scholarship, neither giving in to modernist approaches to creation nor to traditional theories of creation. Instead, Collins maintains a prevailing stance of the preeminence of Scripture over science, and that is seen on each and every page of this text. True, he doesn’t subscribe to a 24-hour young earth interpretation of Genesis 1, yet, he offers substantial support to an old earth hypothesis that allows for a 6 day creation in God’s time.

The flow of the book is somewhat different from what I’m used to in that the sources, authorship, and purpose of Genesis is left to the end of the book, and for good reason for one reading the text from front to back cover. He initiates the book with his method of discourse analysis. He briefly explores the questions that Genesis is trying to answer. He then does a step-by-step analysis on a linguistic basis of the four pericopes of Genesis 1-4, interestingly and for good reason, including the Cain and Abel pericope and aftermath.

Collins concludes the book first with a discussion of source criticism, laying claim that even if one were to identify various sources, it doesn’t contribute to analysis of the book, since the book was masterfully compiled by Moses in a manner that leaves it as a unity rather than a fragmented mishmash. He then puts on his science background hat to explore the claims of Genesis in the light of modern science, but refuses to force science and Genesis into two separate realms. Thus the book concludes by showing how Genesis 1-4 establishes a very distinct Judeo-Christian world view.

My greatest appreciation for this book was that Collins always held a high view of Scripture, and never allowed science to preempt Scripture. Collins maintained a sense of humility toward questions that could not be answered in Genesis even in the light of the remainder of Scripture. Collins offers a forceful and cogent response to the source critics. Of particular note is the hypothesis that Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4-25 are two different creation stories that a redactor sloppily reassembled. Unfortunately, many “conservative” scholars have concurred with this hypothesis. Rather, Collins shows how Gen 2:4-25 was a masterful clarification of the sixth day of creation.

In all, this is one of the better books that I have read on the early Genesis pericopes, and I laud Collins for his perspicuity and insights over a controversial topic. This book is highly recommended to all who have a passing interest in the various debates regarding old and young earth creationism.

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? by C. John Collins

I have recently reviewed one of Jack Collin’s other books on Genesis 1-4. This text addresses a limited portion of that other book, focusing on a theological as well as scientific argument for the existence of a single pair of people forming the source and basis for the remainder of humanity.  There is a moderate amount of repetition between this book and the Genesis 1-4 text, and yet sufficient distinction to make both books worth reading. Collins seems to mostly be directing his arguments toward the new thinking of Theistic Evolution, and specifically countering arguments of the BioLogos forum that states that man evolved from hominids in the distant past, slowing acquiring their distinction as humans with a relationship to god. Briefly, Collins engages in an analysis of the key Adam and Eve texts throughout Scripture, and substantiates the importance of a single Adam and Eve character for the development of the whole of Christian theology. Throw out the traditional Adam and Eve and you result in a Christianity of a completely alien character to what we know. Thus, Adam and Eve must be more than theoretical or abstract constructs.

Three appendices at the end of the book were of great value to read in addition to the main text, and thus must not be skipped. The first dealt with a discussion of other ancient creation and flood texts that archeologists have made available to us. The second demonstrates Collin’s mind in reviewing James Barr, showing Collin’s ability to glean valuable insights from a writer that tends to lace his writings with what might be called theological rubbish. The third appendix is a brief discussion of timing in Genesis.

This is a short book to read, and can be handled by the usual person in several long evenings. The insights from this book offer valuable arguments against much of the trends in theistic evolution, as well as theological discussions that must be the thinking of all orthodox Christians. I would advise that Collin’s other text Genesis 1-4 be read before this text, and hopefully someday he merges the two texts into one tome.

This text is written by a number of scholars at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA from an Intelligent Design perspective to counter the theistic evolution movement. Surprisingly many evangelical theologians and pastors have given their imprimatur to the theistic evolution movement, including Bruce Waltke, Philip Yancey, Os Guinness, Robert Schuler (?), Tim Keller, and Mark Noll to name a few. The theistic evolution movement argues that their stance is consistent with an orthodox reading of Scripture held in an inerrant fashion. This book seeks to establish that theistic evolution falls out of the traditional Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish beliefs.

The first emphasizes the importance of correct thinking on evolution. Richards  and West argue that errors in thinking on evolution has led to such heresies as gnosticism and deistic views of God. Richards identifies prominent Christian leaders like Tim Keller, who seem entirely inconsistent and poorly thought out on his evolution beliefs. Ultimately, the bioLogos movement tends to destroy more theological truths, including a rigorous view of the fall, and a denial that God is present and active in this world. Collin’s efforts to make evolution compatible with a strict view of Scripture has not engendered acceptance of the atheistic evolutionist crowd, primarily because evolution is much more than a scientific theory, but rather a complete belief system about the universe. Luskin spends a chapter detailing why theistic evolution will never appease the atheists in the crowd. Of greatest perplexity is Francis Collins’ strong reaction against the Intelligent Design movement. Attempts at reconciling science and religion had led to the proposal of differing spheres of influence (NOMA), which again reflects confused thinking since science and religion regularly overlap, whether one is a theist or an atheist. Demski investigates the claim that theistic evolution gets God “off the hook” for creating evil, yet argues that is does nothing of the sort, since God remains directly or indirectly “responsible” for evil. Witt then focuses directly on Collins’s position, focusing on his anti-ID stance. In the process, Collins must maintain that the so-called imperfections of nature attest to an imperfect or clumsy God who can’t get things right the first time around (as though theistic evolution solves the problem!). Wells feels that Collins prematurely caved into his atheistic buddies in the science world, but seriously compromised himself in the process by not promoting the notion of a God as immediate creator of the universe. Richards details the belief system of Howard Van Till, showing how Van Till suggested a mechanism built into the system from the beginning by God  which would lead to the tendency toward the evolution of life, called the “robust formational economy principle”. To me, this sound much like an anthropic-teleological principle, with the entire system bent toward the non-random formation of humans. Yet, Richards argues that this is not how we see nature to be, and forms very shaky theological grounds. In the end, Van Till offers more confusion than direction. Van Till himself has since abandoned an orthodox view of God, even being rejected by the now quite liberal Calvin College. Meyer summarizes by suggesting the theistic evolution fails to solve any of the questions that they attempt to solve, i.e, why nature doesn’t seem to have a perfect construction, as defined by our current concept of what an ideal, perfect world (or biological organism) would look like.

The remaining chapters are the Catholic and Jewish argument against theistic evolution. For the Catholic, much discussion related to medieval concepts of nomism vs. realism, Aristotelian thinking in the mind of Thomas Aquinas, and the formal positions of the Catholic church. For the Jewish crowd, discussion of great minds such as Maimonides and traditional Jewish thought through the ages was details. Klinghoffer suggested that while the preponderance of Jews, whether reformed or orthodox,  have blindly accepted evolution as an explanation for the world without conflict with the Hebrew Scriptures and subsequent thinking, this is a result of very poor thinking as to traditional Jewish belief systems.

In all, this book is a superb tour de force contra the theistic evolution crowd. It avoids the young earth/old earth controversy and focuses entirely on the problem Christians assuming that science must speak first, followed by us conforming our theological beliefs to science. To this end, I fear that many conservative theologians are gravely in error subscribing to theistic evolution. It leaves me wondering how my own denomination (the PCA) could close a blind eye to Tim Keller (perhaps because he has a large successful church) while forming a witch-hunt in a minor theological dispute with Peter Leithart.

The issue of Junk DNA has arisen from the claims that theistic evolutionists make arguing that the presence of “junk” DNA is proof that the genome was formed to a large extent from random events. Junk DNA refers to DNA in the genome that does not seem to encode any sort of protein. It is well known that the preponderance of our genome consists of “junk” DNA, and for the most part, its function is not well described. Oddly, the amount of “junk” DNA seems to vary among species, and particular attention is made to the presence of unusually high quantities of “junk” DNA in the onion genome. Wells effectively counters the limpid arguments of such scholars as Francis Collins in noting many discoveries that have shown “junk” DNA to play a role in the genome. First, he shows that much non-protein-coding DNA is still transcribed, and plays vital roles in gene regulatory events, oftentimes during embryologic development. Secondly, he shows how introns (also identified as “junk” DNA) play a significant role in post-transcriptional regulatory events. So-called pseudogenes (genes which are active in some species but “defective” in others) oftentimes also are transcribed and involved in regulatory events. Further chapters detail how other aspects of non-protein-coding DNA are useful in sundry aspects of cell division and growth, such as the necessity of this “junk” DNA to permit centromere function. Wells makes no claim to fully understand the functions of the entirety of the genome, but insists that it is arrogant to ascribe an absence of utility for biological entities whose usefulness is not yet understood. He more than capably destroys the idea that junk DNA is an argument for theistic evolution and against intelligent design.

I took a class in graduate school in 1986 that was in the department of molecular biology and whose subject was pre- and post-transcriptional genomic regulation. Already, much evidence was known that seemed to be dismantling a strict Watson-Crick schema of protein production. Though much of the class was a little over my head in terms of research details, the basic concept of a much greater complex schema of cell regulatory events was already clear. Proteins, chromatin, large and small RNA elements all seemed to play a confusing role in turning genes on and off, in determining what would be translated, and what would be stable versus transitory mRNA elements. This book shows that our knowledge of gene regulatory events has creeped forward a touch. We are still left with an enormous vacuum of understanding as to how the cell truly regulates itself throughout its lifetime. Evolutionists, regardless of whether they are of the theistic vs. atheistic variety, glibly fill in the missing facts with the assumption that science will ultimately answer everything. In reality, they are creating a belief system which I call science-of-the-gaps, which is far more perverse than the God-of-the-gaps accusation directed toward creationists or intelligent design adherents. Creationists of all stripes will admit that science may offer some explanations of the large voids in our knowledge, and that doesn’t do violence to the creationist stance. Evolutionists would never concede that much of their gaps will always remain gaps, since their theory cannot offer a comprehensive explanation of the world as we see it. Their arguments are not won by the force of reason but by the force of arrogant proclamation. I commend Wells for offering solid reason to admit that there is much to yet learn about the genomic structure. Being head of the NIH does not confer Collins the role of science-Pope who can speak ex cathedra for God in matters of evolution, and this book skillfully demonstrates a lacuna in Collins’ thinking.

Bonhoeffer’s is a story worth reading, and well told by Eric Metaxas. It is the tale of a young German growing up in the academic circles of Berlin, deciding to go into theology, only to break away from the liberal tendencies in theology as found in Berlin. Through experiences as a young pastor and student in Spain, London, and NY City, Bonhoeffer matures in his faith towards seeing God not as a distant “other” but somebody with whom daily life interacts. Changes in the German political scene with the rise of Hitler and state interference with the church caused Bonhoeffer to form the separate Bekennendekirche (Confessing church) movement, as well as the institution of a seminary to train young pastors. Bonhoeffer then becomes involved in a plot to kill Hitler. Though jailed initially for other reasons, he ultimately is executed for his role in the conspiracy to kill Hitler.  The books reads well, though often would be better served by leaving long quotes as footnotes.

Metaxas develops Bonhoeffer as a remarkable person, able to see through the vapidness of his theology professors, yet still able to treat them with respect and honor. Bonhoeffer was a man who operated on principle, with an ever deepening faith in God that controlled his entire life. Metaxas also paints Bonhoeffer as a person whose life raises serious questions. I will offer three comments.

1. Is he a model of virtue that we should all follow, especially in regard to our reaction to an evil state? My personal answer is that he is  not. Bonhoeffer, being executed for his role in plot against Hitler, and not for his role as a pastor, makes him an accomplice to an assassin and not a martyr. “Let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer… yet if anybody suffers as a Christian let him not be ashamed” IPeter 4:15-16a. The test of time proved that attempts to assassinate Hitler were providentially ineffective, and God was able to handle Hitler and his henchmen quite nicely at the appropriate time.

2. Bonhoeffer proposes a graded absolutist ethic, which is fraught with intense problems. His ethic is not novel, and is usually discussed in most ethics texts. In it, Bonhoeffer allows that a lesser evil (such as the murder of Hitler, or lying), is permissible in order to accomplish a greater good (freedom of the world from a tyrant) or to avoid a greater evil (the killing of masses of Jews). Unfortunately, this ethic essentially permits any action to occur, since all of our actions are designed to enact a “good”, either to ourselves or to a specific group. The arguments against graded absolutism would be very lengthy and not appropriate for a book review.

3. Bonhoeffer never divorces himself from the liberal camp, becoming at odds with Karl Barth not for his bad theology, but for his bad social approach to the Nazi regime. In his 1939 visit to New York, his identity with American Christianity was mostly limited to his exposure to the dead theology circles of Union Seminary. Bonhoeffer develops a deep spirituality, but this is in the context of social activism, and not in the context of seeking a correct theology. Never do we see a Bonhoeffer whose highest good is the truth. Put in a Christian context, Bonhoeffer holds that worship and obedience take precedence over truth, yet Bonhoeffer fails to see that in reality, they are indivisible, and orthodoxy and orthopraxy are intimately bound. Bonhoeffer’s interest in visiting Ghandi is puzzlesome. Not that Ghandi is not an admirable person, but that Ghandi does not provide a Biblical solution to man’s dilemmas and offers no explanation for the evil that comes out of man, which was soon to destroy Bonhoeffer.

This book is recommended as the spirited retelling of a life worthy of mention, and often an example for all of us in standing against evil. It is a warning of Christians to not compromise their beliefs in the accommodation to the state. It is a devotional plea to always live ones’ moments as corum deo. Thus, it is a book recommended to all.

This book was written as a defense of Scripture, and contra the Bauer-Ehrman thesis. In short, the Bauer-Ehrman thesis supposes that early Christendom consisted of many “orthodoxies”, and that the rise of Constantine and state church forced a given “orthodoxy” on the rest of us. Concurrent with this thinking, the numerous pseudographia and gnostic texts discovered in the last several hundred years have brought some theologians, Ehrman especially, to consider these texts as on par and equal in consideration as the Scriptures that we have. Also argued is that because of textual corruption, it is impossible to know exactly what the Scriptures are or should be. To this, Köstenberger and Kruger capably argue in opposition. The flow of the book is as follows. In the first section, the authors argue that there indeed was diversity within the early church, but that there was a prevailing orthodoxy, and clear conception even in the first century of heresy. The diversity among orthodox thinking was minor and not related to major issues of gnosticism, or the doctrines of God and Christ. The second section develops the idea that a canon of Scripture was apparent early in the second century, and even in the mid to late first century of Christianity, contra Ehrman who claims a very late concept of the canon of Scripture. It was clear early on which texts did not fit into the canon and which texts did. The last section discusses the preservation of the texts, arguing that an intelligent Christian population existed early on who could copy and read the text, and that although tampering could be seen in the text, it never significantly altered the overall meaning of the text. The book is a worthy read for those interested in one of the many battles occurring over the Scriptures today.

I’ve already reviewed a number of books by OP Robertson, and this one is among the best. It is not exactly the book I expected, but actually better than I expected. The layout of the book is quite simple, in that the preliminary chapters introduce the notion of prophetism in Israel, and the general theology of prophecy. The latter chapters run through the various prophets in a chronological fashion, giving a short summary of their environment, thesis, and end result. Overlaid throughout the book is a systematic attack on the new liberal thinking which has even pervaded the writings of many conservative biblical scholars. He shows how the new approaches of redaction and literary criticism tend to offer more confusion than clarity to a text, while simultaneously offering explanations for textual origin that are completely unsubstantiated. Because the Scriptures claim that validity of the prophet is determinant on the truth of the prophecy, to make claim that the prophetic words were written after the fact essentially invalidate the prophet and the Scriptures. Yet, conservative scholars will give in and allow for the claims of higher criticism. The only outcome of this is to allow academia to act as a front for unbelief. Robertson shows quite clearly that there is no reason or justification for not believing the prophetic words of the Old Testament at their face value. The attack on higher criticism found in this book makes it more than worthy of a reading. Robertson is not only the best of the best in academic thinking, but also the best of the best at being entirely Biblical in his thinking and approach to God’s Word.

The first 20 pages of this book, I thought that I might be giving this book a 5 star rating. I’ve read (and reviewed) other Ann Coulter books, and agree with much of what she has to say. So, when I saw this book on sale at Costco, decided that it wouldn’t hurt to read it. As with other Coulter books, much of what she has to say could (and should) have been said in the first chapter. Ann doesn’t know when to stop talking. Though she brings up many historical tidbits that the press seemed to ignore about the liberal “mob”, her persistence tends to grow weary as she seems to go nowhere with her thinking. The second section of this book does a poor and brief recollection of the French revolution, and then attempts to correlate that with the behavior of modern Democrats (liberals). Somehow, Ann is convinced that the Democrats and Republicans are two difference species of animal. This leads to page by page arrogant rants as to how the liberals never do anything right and conservatives never do anything wrong. Her absence of humility becomes quite intolerable. Ann lives in her own world. She refuses to find any problem with Obama’s birth certificate, only because this is not a bandwagon that she can ride. She viciously attacks the non-neo-cons Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for no good reason other than having properly thought out a Christian-constitutional approach to foreign policy. In her last pages of the book, she actually has the audacity to support the terribly liberal treaty of Versailles, probably the greatest mistake of the 20th century. Ms. Coulter should perhaps re-read history, including the history of the mob, which was used by various factions, conservative and liberal throughout the Greek and Roman empire. But then, according to Ann, the mob defines one as liberal. I’ll make sure I never go to a Republican rally, as they also try to engender a “mob” think. Though I agree with much of Ann’s rantings about the extreme bias of the press, better books have been written to develop this thesis. I too detest much of what is liberal in America, yet I find conversations with liberals oftentimes informative and thought-provoking. This is perhaps the last book I’ll ever read by Ann, as there are others that develop her themes much better and argue with consistency. As for Ann, a little humility might help. She needs to spend more time reading and listening, and less time talking. She might also be best served by getting married, though I’d feel a touch sorry for her husband.

A Biblical History of Israel, by Provan, Long and Longman ????

This book ended up being considerably different than I expected from the cover, yet was a delightful and very informative read. I had expected a simple biblical narrative rehash of what I already knew from reading the OT 15-20+ times through. This book did not take that approach. The first five chapters were a defense of doing history, especially biblical history. Current modern liberal theologians tend to identify the Old Testament as entirely unreliable in accounting for a true history of events in Palestine, for reasons that include 1) history in the Old Testament mixes theology and history and thus is unreliable, 2) events of the Old Testament don’t precisely match archeological findings, and thus the OT text is in error, and 3) redaction criticism suggests a late writing of biblical history, which must thus be inaccurate. The authors shrewdly work through each of these objections, showing that the OT can be truly used as a legitimate source for ancient historical studies. The second part of the book then works through the narrative structure of the history of Israel, in particular identifying when liberal scholars note a discrepancy and show how variant reads of the OT text, or extreme extrapolations possible lead to errors on the part of the liberal scholars rather than the text of the OT. A simple example suffices. A recent archeological work failing to show proper period pottery in random digs around Jerusalem was interpreted to suggest that Jerusalem was not occupied during the suggested reign of King David. This is as ludicrous as me digging in my backyard, failing to find Indian artifacts, and thus concluding that Indians did not occupy the Pacific Northwest-aruguments of negation rarely ever prove anything. My disappointment with the book (and this is a serious one) is that none of the authors suggest that the OT might be divinely inspired, in spite of the occasional but insignificant corruptions of the original text. The authors may have been writing for a theologically liberal audience that they wished to not confuse, but it still would have been better to admit your bias, unless the authors truly do not hold to the notion that the Bible is the Word of God. Is it really academic to demand a “scientific” approach to the OT when attesting to its veracity? I don’t think so. The authors occasional comment on the mistake of reading the history from the OT in a “literal” fashion as a mistake, yet fail to distinguish how their lack of literalism differs from the liberal school theologians. For example, they go so far as to suggest that [some of the prophecies and wisdom books may be products of a later period (i.e., inter-testamental period), but this is a matter of speculation]. In the end, in their attempt to find acceptance among liberal theologians, the authors are willing to sacrifice a high view of Scripture, which is precisely the first event that led to liberal theology in the first place. Oddly, it makes no sense to placate these higher theologians, since theirs is a willing decision to reject the claims of Scripture even when shown to be substantially more likely than not to be true. Unfortunately, these liberal theologians sit on the faculty of many seminaries and departments of theology, hiding their absence of faith in the God of Scripture through a smokescreen of “academic rigueur”.

The Rage Against God, by Peter Hitchens ?????
This book was loaned to me by Jonny (son) as a “must-read”. Jonny was correct, in that the book is excellent. Hitchens dialogues his adventures from growing up in a nominally Christian home and school system, and deciding to become an atheist at the young age of 13. Over time, he pursued his personal ideology, spending time in the former Soviet Union as a reporter. Slowly, Peter was able to see the inevitable consequences of a militant atheistic ideology, compelling him to move back into the realms of being a Christian. Much of this book engages the reader in exploring the consequences of atheism, particularly as Peter saw it in the communist countries that he visited. He also discusses encounters with his brother Christopher, who is an outspoken atheist and well known in the liberal press. Peter Hitchens offers valuable insights into the consequences of atheistic thinking. He discusses at length the fall of the west from Christianity to atheism, and shows that it has served us no good. The middle segment of the book addresses particular questions that are raised against Christianity, such as the issue that religion tends to create wars and not peace, that religion tends to be very harmful to children, especially in regard to sexuality and the lust of pedophile priests, and that faith in God tends to breed gullibility. Each of these charges and others are capably answered by showing that atheism has a far greater challenge of answering these same charges. The book is a wonderful read, I appreciated much of what he had to say about politics and religion, and appreciate Jonny for introducing me to the book.

Adobe InDesign Styles, by Michael Murphy ????

I got to know Michael Murphy on the Podcast called “The InDesigner” and appreciated his insights and comments on InDesign. InDesign is the typographer’s dream, giving the typographer undreamed of control over the page and how type appears on the page. In this short book (as well as the two supplemental chapters downloaded from the internet), one learns the proper use of character, paragraph, and object styles, as well as styles used for tables. Murphy also gives a cursory review of GREP, and touches briefly on styles in the interface between word processors such as Microsoft Word and XHTML/CSS. The book was a slow read, but very helpful in learning more about some of the power of InDesign. The biggest weakness of the book was the failure to use enough examples, especially in the area of object styles, which was too cursory. This is a worthy read for the person who wishes to move beyond InDesign basics to increased power use of the program.

Constantine has received serious criticism from the time of his rise to power up to the present. Many claim that Constantine represents the downfall of the church, and the compromise of Christianity with the world. Numerous authors have argued over the course of many texts how Constantine was responsible more than any other person for the rise of a Christianity foreign to the sermon on the Mount. Constantine has earned the disapproval of both secular liberals, such as Gibbon, as well as Christians, such as John Howard Yoder, in his Politics of Jesus. Many recent writings, such as “Truth Triumphant-The Church in the Wilderness” base an entire theology on the corruptions of Constantine, and many have been mislead by failing to truly understand what Constantine did in favor of the Christian church. This book provides not only a historical review of Constantine, but also acts as a critique of Yoder and others, pointing out how Yoder is oftentimes seriously inaccurate as to the history of Constantine as well as the early church, and when the history is ambiguous or unknown, Yoder forces an interpretation of history most fitting with his thesis. In the end, the anti-Constantinians seem to entirely miss the significance of what Constantine accomplished not only for the church, but also for society in general. Leithart reminds us the the church under persecution prayed for an end to persecution, and for the rise of a Christianized government. They got exactly what they prayed for. Yoder finds it intolerable that a Christian could ever be involved in government, and so dismisses the conversion of Constantine as a fraud. Yet, Leithart argues that even in the words of Christ, there is a strongly political statement being made. After Constantine, world leaders were held by a different standard, a Christian standard, that simply did not occur before Constantine. Thus, though Constantine had some serious faults, many of his actions, like the killing of his wife and son, remain inexplicable since we simply don’t have the records to suggest why Constantine did what he did. Constantine is criticized by Yoder for maintaining a military, as he should have been a pacifist. Yet, Yoder is entirely hypocritical, in claiming that government serves a function under God, and that certain enforcement of laws and defense are necessary. This is a thick book, not so much in terms of the number of pages, but in terms of the dense quantity of information and argument provided by Leithart. It would be a challenge to offer an inclusive summary of all the gems this book has to offer, and suggest anybody interested pick up a copy and read it.

Dinesh was recently reviewed by me with his book about Obama. This led me to read another book by him, and this text caught my eye. It is essentially an “apologetics lite” text. D’Souza does a whirlwind presentation of many of the major themes of apologetics without ever going into great depth into any one of them. The book sems to be primarily a polemic against some of the leading atheists of the day, including Gould, Hutchins, Harris, Sagan and others. In order of presentation, he discusses the rise of atheism in our culture and the rejection of Christianity, the invasion of science and the rejection of Christianity by offering an alternative, the response of inteligent design, the philosophical attack on Christianity, the problem of free will and determinism, the problem of evil, and finally a discussion of the uniqueness of Christianity with an appeal to the reader to consider the claims of Christ. The science chapters were the weakest, especially when D’Souza feels compelled to give credence to evolution. This doesn’t make sense, because a worn out hypothesis for the origins of man that leaves more questions than answers to the problem of man’s origin does not contribute to a Christian defense. In all, where D’Souza fails with depth of discussion, he succeeds with a consistent flow in his thought. This book will not persuade a hardened intellectual, but for those who are seeking a consistent appeal to the claims of Christ, the book will offer a start and the correct direction for coming to terms with the God of the universe.

This book is a compilation of advice from five accomplished photographers addressing the issue of nature photography. It is a practical book, and, except for the chapter on black and white photography, was focused on advice for obtaining the shot. Thus, advice about composition, lighting, timing, camera settings, lens usage, and special siruations were at the forefront. Multiple examples of photographic images were given, and it was helpful to know what settings and lenses were being used to obtain the photos. The B&W chapter offered much easy to follow photoshop advice on converting your photos into B&W or duotone specimens. This book was a fun and inspirational read.

This short book addresses the issue of how the Christian should regard the nation of Israel, and what the Scriptures say about who the real Israel may be. The first chapter addresses the theology of “land”, discussing that the land of Israel what we now think of as Palestine as a type of land to come for the Christian.  Robertson then shows clearly that the Scriptures have always defined Israel in a broader sense than just being genetic descendants of Abraham. The next chapters contend with the shift of priesthoods from the Aaronic to the Melchizedechian lines, making sense to me for the first time by explaining the significance of this shift in priesthoods. Next is discussed a theme developed more fully in a previously reviewed book by Robertson on the thme of the wilderness church, that the church in the wilderness has always been largely apostate. Finally, Robertson addresses the kingdom and its King, showing how the nation of Israel had departed from the covenant, and that in replacement, the perfect King, Christ, is installed and now reigns. The status of the current nation of Israel is then returned to. Robertson discusses how the church is the new Israel of God, and that Jews must seek Christ and be permitted into the church in no different of matter than the Gentiles. This book is an easy and delightful read, highly recommended to all, especially those who are ruminanting over the current events of a return of the state of Israel.

I’ve been a bit remiss on writing on my blogsite. Every once in a while I feel like I need to offer a personal reflection on what’s going on, but that may be a while from now. There are some trips being planned soon, which I’ll detail when I get back.

It is a bit unusual perhaps seeing a book on InDesign from me. Oddly, typography has a particular attraction for me. I remember the days when I was a typographical apprentice, mostly using hot type. It was at that time, in the early 1970′s, when cold type first arrived. I remember the clunky and always problematic Alphatype machine, which seemed to be broken more often than not. But, it was the forerunner of our current typesetting technology. I suspected back in 1973 that computers would eventually take over the typesetting business, and I was correct. The only use I had for my Journeyman’s card was to work my way through medical school. My former union (International Typographical Union) doesn’t even exist anymore. It was in the early 1980′s that the first real typesetting program came out, called Aldus PageMaker. I purchased it and started playing with it. It was unreal how closely PageMaker simulated how a typographer would approach type. Aldus was since bought out by Adobe, who later morphed PageMaker into InDesign, constantly adding new functionality. This book takes one on a whirlwind tour of InDesign CS4. It is quite amazing all the power that one now has in the program, compared to the first version of PageMaker. McClelland adeptly demonstrates many of the subtle functions of InDesign CS4. His instructions are quite easy to follow, compared to many how-to-do computer books. Each chapter is accompanied by a short video that highlights a particular segment of the upcoming chapter. My only complain about the book is the preoccupation with certain distractions, such as how  to draw figures, that are nice to be able to do in InDesign, but best performed in Illustrator. I would be quite amazed if somebody owned InDesign and did NOT own both Illustrator and Photoshop. Many typesetting topics were glossed over. He could have spent more time on the use of styles, which is one of the strongest utilities in InDesign. His examples included portions of past books that he wrote, or a silly frog article called Professor Shenbop. I would have appreciated a fuller spectrum of types of publications. Deke did have a keen eye for typographical details, and I wished he would have mentioned his thinking more often regarding adjustments of type spacing, etc. In the 1970′s, everything had to be -10% between-letter spacing, so that letters ran on top of each other—thankfully, that is bygone. In summary, Deke does a most capable job of giving one a great summary of what InDesign CS4, and what it can do. For somebody familiar with InDesign, it was still helpful to read, and I felt like I picked up many new tips to make InDesign more useful to me.

I typically don’t read political books, and especially contemporary political books. This hit me as an exception, based on the discussion created over an excerpt from this book published in the Wall Street Journal. So, while I’m aggressively disinterested in learning anything about BHO, this book seemed to be a worthy exception to the rule. The most notable finding while reading the book is the exception writing style of D’Souza. He is very easy to read, very organized in his thinking, and his writing flows easily. He is convincing, as he is also writing as a person of the “3rd world”, having been born in India. D’Souza has a rather compelling argument for understanding how Obama thinks. The thesis of his book denies that he is primarily a socialist or Muslim or militant anti-racist. Rather, he is a determined anti-colonialist, a trait acquired from his father, of whom he had almost no contact. D’Souza builds an effective argument by walking through the life of Obama to show through his history and writings how Obama’s thinking developed into radical anti-colonialism. In support, D’Souza shows how the many decisions that Obama has made in his presidency confirm his anti-colonial sentiments. Obama considers the USA having replaced Britain as the great world colonizer, motivating him to seek ways to destroy American strength and effectiveness through the world as a means of atonement for America’s “sins” of pro-colonization. While not defending British colonialism, D’Souza shows how the most successful countries in the world today were most dominated by Western colonialism in the past, the prime example being India. Contrary, Africa, while complaining the most about colonialism, was the most briefly occupied by foreign powers, and remains the most backward in their ability to develop themselves out of poverty. This book is a contrast to a book that I recently reviewed, The Decline and Fall of the British Empire by Piers Brendon, where the sins of colonialism are brought out in their worst. Brendon seems to side with the Obama/Africa camp in his heavy emphasis on the problems of colonialism. D’Souza doesn’t deny the evils of colonialism, yet shows how it could be used as a force for good, as is currently occurring in India, China, Indonesia, as well as many other “3rd world” nations that are demonstrating rapid economic gains. D’Souza’s insightful analysis is a worthy read for both the Obama Choir (as D’Souza says, “those hypnotized followers who routinely suspend their rationality when it comes to this political rock star”) as well as those who find Obama as a destructive embarrassment for our nation, to best understand what makes our president tick.

I needed to explore how to better use my flash with my Canon camera, and so I purchased this guide. McLernon adeptly covers the functions and settings for the flash and shows how to program the flash system for the utilization multiple simultaneous flashes illuminating the scene, including discussions of what equipment and supplies would be helpful to best utilize a flash system in a creative manner. McLernon discusses well the various lighting scenarios for various portrait and still life scenes. He is much briefer on technical topics, such as the use of flash sytems with macro lenses in technical photography. Looking over McLernon’s photos in this book and on his website, there is much to commend for this usage of innovative flash setups. There were several problems that I noted with the book. 1. McLernon should have given better illustrations of floor setup of the flashes. From a schematic view, where was he placing the flashes, how was he pointing them, how were the flashes configured to obtain the effect that was being illustrated? He describes various portrait lighting modes, such as the Paramount and Rembrandt, but does not tell the reader exactly where flashes are placed to obtain those effects. Thus, the descriptions were near useless. 2. McLernon spends much time discussing basic photography rules and compositional techniques. But, I didn’t purchase the book to learn basic photography rules. As an example, he discusses sports photography, and includes photos that did not use a flash. Perhaps he could have utilized flash/non-flash comparisons of various scenes to demonstrate how flash photography adds a different dimension to the photo, but that is never done. Thus, the book deviates from the objective of simply teaching flash photography. It is still a useful book for understanding the Canon flash system, but bloated with off-topic discussions and lacking in useful information to guide the amateur flash user in the art of flash photography.

This book was published in 1995, and won the Publication Award of the Biblical Archeological Society, so I felt that it would be a great read. I was a bit disappointed. It is perhaps that scholarship tends to be so scant and poor in biblical archeology, that any publication would receive accolades regardless of actual quality of the write. Each chapter was written by different authors, some chapters being excellent, others being quite poor. I thought that the last three chapters, on the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites were actually the best, while the chapters on Egypt and Mesopotamia being quite mediocre. My greatest complaint is the absence of any reasonable discussion regarding the reconciliation of the biblical with the archeological data. Often, the author would consider the biblical record as entirely subservient to the archeological findings, an approach I feel that does violence to God’s word. I’ll quote two examples… page 170, “What can be known about the Canaanite religion derives from two general sources of information: written records and material remains. The Bible is an important source, but the biblical writers naturally present a somewhat biased point of view that deprecated the Canaanite religion…”. Excuse me! I thought that God’s point of view was the only truly unbiased view. I am seeking a Biblical view on how I look at the world, desiring and NOT avoiding a Biblical perspective! Page 219 “…the account of the battle at Ramoth Gilead in I Kings 22 seems problematic as well and should also be considered highly suspect.” I would actually consider the archeological data highly suspect before I consider the Biblical data suspect. I could go on, but I think I’ve made the point that many of the authors seem to have a very low opinion of Scripture. IMHO, Scriptures seem to reflect an absence of human bias and error that is found in all writings, including the current newspapers, which need to be read with great care, in order to discern what actually happened in a given event. The authors oftentimes frustrated me. Discussions of Sumer and early Babylon failed to mention the Biblical context, such as describing the world that Abraham came out of. Virtually no thought is given to the Biblical flood, and though flood accounts are mentioned throughout most world literatures, this book treats the flood as a non-event. Should I presume that there is virtually no archeological remains from before the flood? Minimal to no discussion of the timing of the Exodus was given, of the tower of Babel, and other significant Biblical events. I would hope that a better archeological text with a modicum of respect for the Scriptures be forthcoming in the future.

On occasion, I find that Sudoku is a great way to relax and still use the mind. Naturally, over time, one becomes interested in harder puzzles, and looks for better algorithms for resolving the puzzle when answers don’t seem to be coming. So, I was quite eager to read this book, since it is supposedly written for really smart people. In actual fact, the book did give me a few insights in resolving some of the more challenging puzzles. Unfortunately, the added insights from the book help only in limited circumstances. He also provides a history of Sudoku, which I found to be quite interesting. I did not realize that Sudoku did NOT come from Japan, but was popularized there.

A combination of the techniques that I have developed as well as techniques of this book can resolve many but certainly not all Sudoku puzzles. Gordon admits that there are puzzles that simply are not solvable without guessing. I was grateful that somebody finally admitted that. He also noted that the Sudoku is written poorly if it eventually demands a guess to solve. My technique involves writing a tic-mark whenever a 9-block unit is reduced to just 2 squares of possibility for a given number. Gordon uses a more conventional tic-mark technique, where the tic-marks include all the possibilities for a given square. Gordon’s technique is best used when solving Sudoku on a computer, as I do not use a pencil, and certainly would object to having to write and erase multiple times. Gordon on paper has the result of taking the joy out of Sudoku. An optimal computer Sudoku game program would show all tic-marks, but show when tic-mark numbers are reduced to only 2 per 9-block unit by changing the color of the tic-marks to easily visualize them. Gordon’s advanced techniques are of value only when the puzzles are nearly completely solved, and not as useful early in a puzzle, when most of the unfilled blocks have multiple possibilities. Gordon provides lots of puzzles that demonstrate his techniques, and is easy to read, though certainly not requiring a “Mensa” mentality, which seems to me more an indication of the person’s arrogance rather than their intelligence.

This is a short, very easy to read text that describes the land of the Bible in order help one understand biblical history and teaching from a perspective of understanding the lay of the land. Robertson briefly describes the geography of Israel, followed by various topics such as the climate, vegetation, and various cities/populations over the epochs of biblical times. This book is an enjoyable read, as Robertson is able to include in a meaningful fashion how the geology and land of the Old and New Testaments affected the understanding of various historical events that occurred. It has some deficits. It is a little too brief, and one has a hard time grasping the actual terrain without actually being there. While reading the text, I spent about half of the time on Google Maps, trying to get a better grasp of the geography of the area. It could have used more illustrations other than just maps. A brief chapter on the geology of Israel would have been nice in order to understand such geological deformities as the Jordan Valley/Dead Sea. In the vegetation section, it describes various mideast plants, but leaves us wondering what those plants are, such as the Terebinth. A photo, if not a brief description, would have been quite helpful. Many locations are described, but one is left wondering where those locations fit on a modern map of Israel. Where is Shechem, Samaria, etc.? Why is Capernaum no longer in existence? What happened to it? Where does the city of David’s Jerusalem fit into modern Jersusalem? I could go on. The strongest chapter was the last, which describes five ways of viewing the land of Israel. Does the land of Israel belong to the Jews? Will they reoccupy the land some day? Were the crusaders correct in trying to re-conquer the Holy Lands for Christianity? Is it even proper to name the land of the Old and New Testament the “Holy Land”? All of these questions are answered in a most proper fashion. Through all the chapters, Robertson is able to add biblical insights that show how the land of Israel indeed was certainly created specifically as the stage for the appearance of  our Lord. This is a worthy book to read, yet I hope that perhaps a second edition will remedy the deficits mentioned above.

This is a rather short book, 149 pages, and easy to read in several evenings. Robertson writes in an efficient style without wasted verbiage, yet is not challenging to read. He writes in an academic style, and manifests the art of exegesis of Scriptures at its best. In sum, he is a joy to read. This is my second book that I’ve read by him, and you should be seeing a number of further reviews of this author, as he merits our full attention. Robertson now teaches in Africa at Malawi Bible College, but lives as one of the veritable giants among living theologians today. Robertson is best know for his book “Christ of the Covenants”, showing that the Covenants throughout Scripture are indeed one, though progressively contributing to or fulfilling prior “versions” of the covenant.

The introduction to this text provides the theme. While Christ often referred to the church as the “Kingdom of God”, and Paul referred similarly to the church as the “body of Christ”, these metaphors for the church are never used within Hebrews. Rather, the author of Hebrews develops the likeness of the church as Israel during the time of the Exodus, living in the wilderness. The first chapter develops the thesis of the living church today as being the church in the wilderness. Subsequent chapters note the covenant that binds Israel (the church) in the wilderness, the unity of people within the wilderness sojourn, and the tensions encountered in the wilderness such as the temptation to rebel or the failure to heed the instructions of the law, the worship of the church in the wilderness, and the ultimate goal of an eternal rest of God’s people in the wilderness. Indeed, throughout the book of Hebrews, the theme of the church, like Israel, living in the wilderness is used, and the cautions, admonitions, and exhortations for the church remain the same as God gave the Israelites in the wilderness, until their goal of a rest for God’s people is found. That rest is symbolized by the arrival in the promised land, but represents our final rest in Christ after death. Until then, the tensions and struggles of the wilderness will remain.

Perhaps the best summary of the book might be given by a brief quote from the book. “If the church of today could grasp the eschatological nature of its present pilgrimage, it could be saved from many current disillusionments. Bodily health and material wealth, an abundance of creaturely comforts, should not be the promise held out to believers today. Escape from troubles and troublous times should not be the church’s expectation. To the contrary, the spoiling of material goods along with society’s rejection that leads to a life out the camp should be openly presented as the norm for the disciples of Jesus. At the same time, a simplified philosophy of pie in the sky bye and bye cannot properly represent the Christian’s perspective on the present life. Instead, currently living out life within the inner chamber of God’s Most Holy Place, constantly communing intimately with the three persons of the one true triune God, fellowshipping in daily life and worship with the loving brotherhood, while all the time anticipating the final rest, perfection and realization of consummate hope – these are only a few of the elements that describe the eschatological lifestyle of believers in Jesus as the Christ. As the church of today discovers its true identity as God’s People in the Wilderness, she may find the fullness of life that only the Christ of God can give”.

As an aside, there is a book titled “Truth Triumphant-the Church in the Wilderness” where the church in the wilderness metaphor is used in what a careful observation would show to be a strictly non-biblical usage. In this text by B. Wilkinson, the argument goes that the wilderness church remains a small remnant of the church that has separated from the mainline church to remain Saturday-Sabbath observers and maintain the purity of the “true church”. A reading of Robertson’s text, or a simple reading of Hebrews, would demonstrate the error of using the wilderness church metaphor in the fashion of Wilkinson.

This is the second book that I’m reading on creation from a literal 6-day perspective. The book actually started out quite well, and after several chapters, was thinking that this was going to be a 4 or 5 star text. Unfortunately, Donald allowed the text to lapse into various quibbles without defending his stance, as I’ll explain. There is one vital strength to the book which I must not delay to mention. Donald is seriously concerned about maintaining Scripture as our only solid reference point for our thinking. He is concerned about maintaining Scripture as infallible, and the only orientation for our worldview, to which I would agree. He is concerned that we  not read anything into Scripture but that we allow it to speak to us, since it represents God speaking to man. Again, no problem with me.

Donald Crowe is a professor of biblical languages at two very small schools of higher education, belonging to a very small  presbyterian denomination which broke off from main stream presbyterianism, over doctrinal distinctives which were felt to be more vital than Christian unity or other Christian virtues. Several of those distinctives include a sworn allegiance to presuppositional apologetics, post-millenial eschatology, theonomy, and strict adherence to the Westminster confession.

Donald provides a history of evolution/formation of the universe from the Greek and Roman thinkers through the enlightenment. He pauses to defend the chronology of time as offered by Bishop Ussher, placing the moment of creation at about 4000 B.C. He lapses into some minor discussions of the flood, defending a universal flood. He then explores the life and thinking of Charles Darwin, showing how it was necessary for him to reject the Christianity of his youth in order to develop his fantastic account of natural selection. Donald then lapses into a vitriolic attack on Hodge and Warfield at Princeton, while placing Dabney between them as the only true preserver of the truth of creation. At last, 2/3 of the way through the book, one comes to the moment of truth—the exegesis of Genesis 1. Unfortunately, it was limited to 29 pages, and then, mostly quotes are from other texts, such as Kelly’s book on creation, and the overused text from E.J. Young about Genesis 1 not being poetry. The next chapter, consisting of 41 pages, attempts to detail the consequences of a evolutionary worldview. Sadly, this is where I realized I was wasting my time reading the book. I become weary whenever an author discusses Hitler and the Nazis as the best example of the end result of any sort of non-Christian worldview; it is way, way, way overused. Evolution came from England, and Donald could have more easily discussed the evils of Churchill as a man who will burn in the same low rung of hell as Hitler, Stalin and a few other notables of the twentieth century.

Donald loves the term “eisegesis of desperation” which he uses on anybody who disagrees with his interpretation of Scripture. Donald might be accused of übergesis, a word which I coin to mean “to not look at the Scripture at all, but over it”. Donald’s übergesis of Genesis 1 quotes everybody else, but fails to give us arguments based on his own exegesis, all the while quoting his favorite phrase from the Westminster Confession (which he must have memorized before #1 “What is the chief end of man?”) about allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Let me remark on a few examples (of which there are many) where Donald goes astray. On p. 220, he quotes Berthoud, who asks why we would consider it difficult for the creator of the universe to not be able to do it in 6 days?The question gets you nowhere, since we all believe that God could have done it any way that he wished. Donald must explain why God couldn’t have done it instantaneously! Just before this quote, Donald übergeses a quote from James Jordan, who “… does show how it is possible to discover several chiastic literary structures [in Gen 1] without rejecting the historical narrative of six calendar days”. So what? How does that diminish a framework hypothesis? I could go on, but, so many of his “exegetical” statements were taken from Kelley and others, that I have discussed elsewhere.

I read this book hoping it to be a clear Scriptural argument for a young-earth literal 6 consecutive 24-hr creation. It was more like reading Henry Morris, whose writings first persuaded me against an absolute insistence on a young-earth interpretation. I have appreciated Donald’s willingness to give creation an entirely Scriptural defense, yet he failed in that regard. Perhaps the Scriptural text is simply NOT clear enough? We might look at Moses interpreting himself in Ps. 90:1,2 “…before the mountains were brought forth or ever you had formed the earth or the world, from everlasting to everlasting…” leaves a picture painted by Moses of the antiquity and prolonged process of creating the world. Ps. 104 leaves one the same impression. Even though these verses are poetry, they are also, just like Gen. 1, true truth, true history that must not be übergesed into insignificance as to what they say. Or, take God interpreting God in Job 38 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? ..Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? … who determined its measurements-surely you know! Or who who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together?” Why didn’t Donald inform God that the morning stars had to wait until day 4? When God speaks, I dare not explain way his statements as simple poetry that can’t be taken literally!

We live with a creational tension that is best described by optical metaphors. When we look at God’s creation, we get a virtual (apparent) image of age, which is probably different from the real image (or age) of when the earth was actually made. The difference will be especially true if God created with apparent age, or if there were factors before the flood which have since caused things to appear older. There is simply no way that science will give us an exact answer as to the age of the earth, but  a complete reading of the whole counsel of God in the entirety of Scripture neither will give us a perfect answer as to the exact age of the universe. I don’t need a perfect answer. We should not do as Donald has done, and use a young earth creation scheme as a proof of orthodoxy.

I purchased and read this book at the recommendation of a friend in hopes that I would have a better biblical rationale for a 6 day creation, over that of an old-earth creation.  My comments later will discuss the efficacy at achieving that end. Kelly is a theologian who teaches at Reformed Theological seminary, and is definitely not a scientist, a fact that he does not hide. I review the book chapter by chapter to offer adequate comments.

Chapter one is a simple introduction, stating his goal of developing the scientific and Scriptural necessity for a 6 day creation.

Chapter 2 develops the literary genre of Gen 1-3, arguing against poetry and for pure history as the literary construct in these passages. His main source material for the argument comes from the work of E.J. Young, who adamantly states that there is no poetry in Gen 1-3. The argument posed by Young is not given. I tend to disagree on forming a dichotomy, and feel that Gen. 1 reads very clearly as poetry, yet, as true poetry, and thus also historical. It is both. Kelly argues briefly against the documentary hypothesis, which proposes two accounts of creation, that found in Gen. 1-2.3, and that found in Gen 2.4 and on. I agree with Kelly that the best reading is a single account with Genesis 2 expanding on details in the creation narrative.

Chapter 3 provides an argument for creation ex nihilo, and the argument of intelligent design, as well as an argument for the necessity for a creation from the laws of thermodynamics.

Chapter 4 discusses day 1 of creation. Much of his discussion centers around what might be considered pre-day 1, that is, the account of the Spirit of God moving over the unformed earth, before He creates light.

Chapter 5 is a partial diversion, arguing about the timing of the creation of angels, for which nothing is said in Scripture and thus isn’t worth speculating on. He discusses the gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, mostly countering a theory that supposes the world to have been developed, and then destroyed, after which God begins again to create the earth as we know it. He doesn’t discuss why the literary structure would most easily be read as a gap, especially since he is concerned about the “plain reading” of the verses.

Chapter 6 specifically examines the meaning of the word “day”. He offers a very incomplete argument regarding the entire scriptural usage of the word “day”. In this chapter, he discusses the framework hypothesis, popularized by Meredith Kline, which states that the six days are only a framework for God’s creative activity, and not necessarily a chronological account. He contends that a more “literary” approach dangers on nominalism, which is a strange argument, since such reasoning could be used to argue against just about anything. As an example, an argument against predestination is that it logically leads to fatalism is simply not true. The technical notes at the end of this chapter argue again against the documentary hypothesis. He discusses Augustine’s ambiguous stance on creation and various New Testament quotes, none of which address the young earth vs. old earth controversy.

Chapters 7 and 8 are his plunge into science. In chapter 7, the first argument is for the timing of Adam, which he feels fits the Ussher chronology, and to which I have no serious problems. Unfortunately, this addresses only timing following the seven creation days and nothing more. He then spends much time discussing the theory that the speed of light over time has slowed down, in fact, since the creation 6000 years ago, it is going 5 x 10(11th power) slower, which would give the earth an apparent age of billions of years. This sounds overtly appealing but logically destroys all of Kelly’s argument. He suggests that we reference the 24 hr/day of creation by today’s reference. Under this scheme, the clock which ran ran apparently for 24hrs would now run for millions of years. This explanation creates as many problems as solutions by making time variable and thus meaningless for discussion. Finally, Kelly tortures me in his absence of scientific knowlege in this chapter. He constantly speaks of such things as the “velocity of an electron in its orbit around the proton”, a kickback to the old Bohr theory which nobody including Bohr accepts.

Chapter 8 deals with physical means of determining chronological age. He first argues that all things were created with apparent age, a statement that I couldn’t disagree with. If things were created with apparent age, then science (as he offers) simply could not help us resolve a timing issue. Regarding geological evidence provided by Morris and his comrades, my Christian geology friends attest it to be woefully wrong. Morris does not take account of plate tectonics and other geological explanations as to why things appear the way they are. Kelly argues strongly against uniformitarianism, i.e., that the laws of physics do not change, since the catastrophe of a great flood could explain matters without uniform physical laws. The discussion then turns to dating methods such as carbon-14, showing a moderate inaccuracy in the dating technique as well as reason to doubt the validity of c-14 dating. I have no disagreement with his arguments, even though C-14 dating has also been quite helpful at establishing biblical type dates to many archeological finds, and thus is not totally without value. Much of his criticism stems from the work of Morris and Brown, who tend toward doing poor science at best, and whose arguments in this chapter do not bear worth contending with since are are so poorly thought out. As a brief example, Morris and Brown, as others, contend against uniformity, yet use uniform physical properties to claim calculations of the age of the earth and universe, a questionable enterprise at best.

Chapter 9- This chapter speaks about days 2 &3 of creation, first the separation of waters from heaven and earth, and then the “gathering” of water to create dry land. Finally, vegetation is created. Much of the discussion relates to the creation of vegetation, and the argument against time and chance possibly creating plant life.

Chapter 10 discusses briefly day 4 &5 of creation, i.e., the creation of the sun, moon and stars, and later the creation of fish and fowl. He makes minimal elaboration but tries to explain how plants were made on day 3 and the sun on day 4 – surely plants could survive one day without sun!

Chapter 11 speaks very briefly of the creation of the animal world followed by the creation of man. He leaves many holes in the explanation of the creation narrative. He too briefly touches on theistic evolution, and to my dismay, offers minimal critical arguments against this thinking on a theological basis.

Chapter 12 finishes with a discussion of the Sabbath day and it’s relevance for today as a creation edict. I have no problem with this discussion, though he fails to offer an explanation why the seventh day doesn’t end with the typical closure verbiage of the previous 6 days.

So, did the book persuade me against old earthism as distinctly an error in the interpretation of Genesis 1? Unfortunately, his arguments relied heavily on such people as Henry Morris, who, more than any other writer, persuaded me against a solid 6 day creation scheme because of his sloppy thinking and writing. There were stylistic issues that I had with Kelly. I don’t like when somebody overuses superlatives, such as “Prof. X wisely reminds us…”, “distinguished Christian exegete XX”, “crisply states”, etc. Kelly repeats often, and could have edited the book down a bit. Kelly’s exposition of Hebrew grammar sometimes is too harsh and determinative. As an example, he discusses Gen 1:26 ” Let us make man…” arguing that the pleural for God is a first argument of a trinitarian God. Contrary, Waltke (whom I don’t always agree with) takes a much more cautious approach, but offers adequate explanation as to how he comes to a certain conclusion.

In summary, Kelly does a poor job of arguing for a young earth. He fails mostly in that he should have given a better theological development for a young earth. Thus, I remain undecided yet between old and young earth explanations for creation.  I don’t believe it humanly possible to scientifically prove one way or another, since things could have been created with age. There remains the question as to whether old-earthism does violence to Scripture, which I remain unconvinced by Kelly’s arguments.

This book is  monumental, 662 rather thick pages. It could not be read quickly. A very compelling read, the book was difficult to put down. Brendon starts the fall of the Empire at the time of the loss of the American colonies. Brendon then details the rise and fall of the British slave trade, the early attempts at colonization of India, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Further, he speaks of the spread of empire through the Far East and Afghanistan, Africa, and then the troubles with Ireland and the Boer War in South Africa. The First world war was detailed as the first truly significant decline of the British rule of the world, though they did acquire holdings in the Mid-east, including Egypt and Cyprus. The second world war seemed to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, with which India, then Ceylon, Myanmar, Signapore and other smaller entities rebelled and were able to obtain freedom from England. Brendon walks through the loss of Israel, the Suez Canal debacle, and Aden loss. The 1960′s showed British attempts to stabilize their hold on Africa, only to see Gold Coast (Ghana), Nigeria, Kenya, Rhodesia and the other African republics peel off. Finally, the loss of holdings in the West Indies and Cyprus, the comical attempt to show strength in holding a worthless set of islands off of Argentina (the Falklands), and lastly the loss of Hong Kong to China in 1997 left England with only a few insignificant rocks and islands scattered throughout the world.

Brendon writes in style that is mostly ad hominem. He doesn’t give you straight history, and often, if unfamiliar with any particular history, one would need to look elsewhere to find details of the events that he is discussing. Instead, Brendon will linger at length at what various politicians, generals, and other leaders may have said at the time of the historical event. It is more a history behind the closed doors, or a history that you would experience on the streets. This is both good and bad, since Brendon tends to dwell on the most foppish remarks made that perhaps don’t always reflect true feelings or intentions. Several Amazon.com reviewers gave the book very low scores with the complaint that it has a vile bias against empire building. That is certainly true. Most histories that you read of the British Empire tend to extol the virtues and blessings that the British bestowed on forcefully occupied populations. If one wished to purely look for the good that came out of something, one  could argue the virtues of Napoleon since he brought a liberal rule of law to many lands, and the goodness of Hitler since he gave Europe the gift of the Autobahn. I appreciate Brendon because he gives one balance in thinking about the history of the British Empire, even though it is biased heavily against British rule over half the world. Brendon’s terrible biases become most apparent in his interpretations of modern history. He has a terrible dislike for Margaret Thatcher and fails to say any good about her, even though she was following the general wish of most Britons. Even still, forget or sweep under the rug the abominations and atrocities performed by Her Majesties Service in the colonies, such as total and complete mass genocide in Tasmania, forced opium sales in China, brutal slaughters of major portions of the population in the Boer wars as well as other colonies, tyrannical forced rule in India, Ceylon, Burma, Kenya and many other African countries, arrogant racial snobbery towards blacks, Indians, and yellow folk suggesting that European (British) whites were a master race, and the absolute ineptitude of many military enterprises such as in Gallipoli and the Falklands.

By the time one has read all 662 pages of this book, it should be very clear that the Brits are intolerably arrogant, profoundly hypocritical, brutally racist, almost making Stalin, Hitler and Mao look like school children in the art of vice. Yet, I see many Americans possessing this arrogant attitude towards the rest of the world, suggesting that the problem runs deeper than just the British thought pattern. With its problems and limitations, I would still highly recommend this book as a worthy read, even if just to get one thinking about how certain foreign policies tend to create messes that will be around for centuries to come.