<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The POSTMODERN "Christian" Heart?
Review: A previous reviewer wrote: "Stackhouse is logical, warm, and true to the Bible without being dogmatic. This is apologetics for the compassionate and postmodern Christian heart." First, I am not sure that you can be true to the Bible without being dogmatic, since the Bible itself dogmatically claims to be a revelation from God without compromise or room for denial. Second, saying that this is apologetics for the "postmodern Christian heart" may be saying more than what the reviewer intends -- that is, this is the apologetics preferred by those "Christians" whose hearts have already been shaped by postmodernism instead of Scripture.
Rating: 
Summary: Practical Apologetics
Review: I think Stackhouse hits the nail on the head. Apologetics is a means to an end and not an end in itself. Stackhouse is concerned that people far from God have an opportunity to see Jesus and His life and teachings in ways that are relevant to their lives. I too have been embarrassed by Christian apologists who may "win" the argument, but repel people from the truth by their smug arrogance. In the postmodern context of our culture today the messenger is, in some sense, the message. The message and the manner in which it is delivered is critical. Jesus, the Bible says, was full of truth, but he was also full of grace. Stackhouse restores a Biblical balance to the issue of apologetics
Rating: 
Summary: Humble Apologetics
Review: I will have to agree with the reviewers who say that this book presents an unbiblical and non-Christian approach to apologetics. And if the approach is unbiblical, then you are not defending the biblical faith anymore. I just want to register my disagreement with this book, but I don't really want to write a lot, so I will just make one point about the review by "Dan Olson." He writes, "Stackhouse recognizes that obvious: that when we live in a religiously pluralist society, a reflective person can't but recognize that others hold other mutually exclusive positions, making certainty a bit more tenuous." This sounds very silly to me. For every truth, there are an infinite number of false alternatives. There are an infinite number of false answers to "1 + 1." Am I then to doubt even that, even though I can logically prove a proposition to the exclusion of all other possibilities? To weaken one's certainty because there are many proposed alternatives seems to be a sign of intellectual weakness.
Rating:
Summary: Humble Apologetics
Review: John Stackhouse book is lucid, winsome, and profoundly Christian - I commend it to all those who take Scripture seriously, are theologically orthodox, and desire to be a humble, earnest, and reflective witness for Christ in a world marked by relativism and religious skepticism on one hand, and defensive and insular biblicism on the other. With reference to the previous reviewers, this book is good enough that I must defend it against those who seem to have missed the point. To begin, Stackhouse in no way "bows to contemporary intellectual trends." He is thoroughly orthodox but merely recognizes the fact of ethical and religious pluralism (look around), and never encourages Christians to affirm the truth of other faiths. Instead, he clearly and humorously helps one understand the current epistemological situation... then encourages the Christian community to witness by example and through humble and earnest dialogue. Instead of flagrantly and arrogantly condemning other faiths, he encourages the Christian to thoughtfully and respectfully commend the Christian faith, arguing if necessary, but always in a spirit of respect and love. This seems to me the most effective, and most Christlike, approach - lovingly bringing in the Kingdom of God one relationship at a time. With regards to religious exclusivism, it seems to me that theologically he would fall into this camp (contrary to the comments of "a reader") - however, Stackhouse rightly affirms the obvious: since we are not God, we are not privy to certaintly about the eternal status of others; therefore our only recourse is to earnestly and lovingly (and, if needed, argumentatively) commend the faith to those we meet, always respecting the other's freedom and intellectual integrity - recognizing that everyone always has reasons for what they believe... regardless of how coherent (or incoherent) they are. No doubt Paul in Athens (Acts 17) is a perfect example, even appropriating ways in which the Epicurean and Stoic philosophies pointed to Christian truth (by quoting their texts...find any commentary). Regarding what "First Theology" writes about "humanistic and secular philosophies", I'm not certain exactly what his issue is. Stackhouse recognizes that obvious: that when we live in a religiously pluralist society, a reflective person can't but recognize that others hold other mutually exclusive positions, making certainty a bit more tenuous. However, amidst this new situation, Stackhouse rightly maintains Christianity's uniqueness - perhaps not as winsomely agressive as, say, G.K. Chesterton... but that is not his purpose. His approach merely suggests that returning to an age of heretic-burning isn't merited. (I might add that Stackhouse may agree with N.T. Wright that biblical literalists may reflect "humanist and secular philosophies" (more specifically Western materialism, a.k.a. postivism) more than other Christian traditions - thus allowing "First Theology" to know certainly and completely "what the Bible teaches"... treating scripture (particularly the N.T.) as a store-house of mere propositional and literal truth, which reflects a way of thinking about Scripture resulting from the Enlightenment (post-18th century) and narrowed during the Biblical inerrancy debates of the last 130 years... (Cf. The New Testament and the People of God, Ch. 2).) Previous reviewers, and others immersed in a Christian sub-culture no doubt realize there are contentious issues of debate, but Stackhouse (I think rightly) outlines an appropriate (and may I reiterate, thoroughly orthodox) approach, recognizing that in commending the faith to one's neighbor, one must start from common ground. With the most important insight being that the example of Christlike love is the most cogent and convicting of arguments. After reading this, if you want to burn me at the stake, then you won't enjoy "Humble Apologetics"... if this resonates with you - then Stackhouse is a wise and humble guide for Apologists everywhere. Remember, though, his book isn't a compendium of arguments, but an insightful and wise APPROACH to our faith's defense.
Rating:
Summary: First Theology
Review: The above review made me more determined to order and read this book. "Misses the mark" has missed the whole point. What Stackhouse intended to focus on was just this sort of arrogant, superior attitude demonstrated by misses the mark's review. As Christians we are no where told to condemn other religions but to be examples (humble ones at that!) of those who have been saved by grace...the same grace available to all people, including those in other religions. Hmmmmm didn't Jesus say:
"I have not come into the world to condemn it but to save it." Stackhouse presents a view of apologetics that is closer to the heart of Christ than many other self-righteous arrogant apologetical works.
Rating:
Summary: Thoroughly refreshing
Review: Written from a humble point of view, this book could be subtitled "For anyone who is annoyed by being told that Christians must present evidence that demands a verdict." Stackhouse is logical, warm, and true to the Bible without being dogmatic. This is apologetics for the compassionate and postmodern Christian heart.
Rating:
Summary: The POSTMODERN "Christian" Heart?
Review: Written from a humble point of view, this book could be subtitled "For anyone who is annoyed by being told that Christians must present evidence that demands a verdict." Stackhouse is logical, warm, and true to the Bible without being dogmatic. This is apologetics for the compassionate and postmodern Christian heart.
<< 1 >>
| 
