Another Review Not My Own

I don't have the time or energy to review The Shack by William P. Young. Plus, Tim Challies' review is far better than mine would ever be. You can find it here:

http://www.discerningreader.com/review/the-shack/

Review of Friends of Liberty by Gary Nash and Graham Russell Gao Hodges

Too many books, too little time to post. I have been reading but not posting. I'm going to try to get back in the habit of putting brief reviews on the site. My first review is Friends of Liberty by Gary Nash and Graham Hodges. Nash is of the course the dean of the history of the common man. Along with Alfred Young and others, he has been a prime proponent of bottom up history. To great benefit, he has taken our eyes of the elites that have traditionally been the focus of historical writing. Instead, he has invited us to see history through the eyes of those whom history has tended to forget.

At first a book about Thomas Jefferson and Tadeusz Kosciusko would seem to betray Nash's normal style. After all, Jefferson are "great men," enshrined in the pantheon of history. It is only the inclusion of Agrippa Hull that hints at Nash's usual interests. Still, Hull is not present for long stretches of the book. And in many ways, the argument of the book could advance without his him. When I first picked the book up, I figured that Hull would somehow be linked to both Jefferson and Kosciusko. That is not the case. In fact, Hull is really not even that closely connected to Kosciusko. While Hull served for several years as Kosciusko's personal servant during the Revolution, there was little interaction between the two men before or after that time. Of course, war can forge bonds that are deep and emotional in a short time. But Hull comes across as ancillary to the main plot. He serves largely as a foil to Jefferson, damning Jefferson by his industry, frugality, and virtue. Hull's life emphasizes how much Jefferson was lacking in these qualities. (I suppose that Nash and Hodges would posit that Hull was also inspiration to Kosciusko, nurturing his anti slavery sentiment. For reasons that will be seen shortly, I am less convicned of this).

The centerpiece of the book is a betrayal. Kosciusko entrusted Jefferson with funds that were to be used to liberate Jefferson's slaves and educate them upon Kosciusko's death. The funds were never used for their intended purpose largely because Jefferson lacked the courage and conviction to carry out his dear friend's wishes. Jefferson is definitely the villain in this book. The title is clearly ironic in his case. That is not to say that Nash and Hodges' portrait of Jefferson is not nuanced. Nash and Hodges place Jefferson's decisions in the context of his culture showing how political prudence, class consciousness, and racism shaped Jefferson's choices.

It is the nuanced portrait of Jefferson that leads to the key criticisms of this work. While Jefferson is portrayed warts and all, Kosciusko is almost regarded as a saint. It seems that there were no faults or inconsistencies in Kosciusko's own character. In regard to Kosciusko, the work almost borders on hagiography. Think of Weems' portrayal of Washington and you have an idea of how Nash and Hodges lionize Kosciusko. The same is true of the author's portrayal of Hull. Though here, the authors may be forgiven because the evidence is slim, and virtually all the evidence speaks well of Hull.

Evidence is the other key difficulty in this work. At times, the authors fail to use evidence critically. At other times, they reach conclusions almost devoid of evidence. As an example of the former fault, see the story about Hull dressing in Kosciusko's clothes and Kosciusko's subsequent reaction. While Nash and Hodges do situate the story in the cultural practices of New England's black community, they really do little to investigate whether the story has a basis in fact. They also do little to deconstruct the story, analyzing its metanarratives. The second fault shows up in several places. Nash and Hodges at times appear to be omniscient narrators, speaking confidently of the thoughts and emotions of their subjects without true evidence.

Still, for all its rather substantial faults, this is a work worth reading. I have to admit that before this book my knowledge of Kosciusko was rather limited. (I knew he was a Pole. I knew he was a Revolutionary general. And I knew that he had a bridge named after him). And Agrippa Hull is a man worth knowing too. Considering how much his society constrained his liberty, it is instructive that he still can be called a friend of American liberty.

Pop Goes Theology: A Review of Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears

Systematic theology. To most people the words stir emotions associated with words like dentist's drill, hemorrhoid, or lobotomy. Reading systematic theology can be a dry, dusty exercise akin to eating a bucket of sand. Thankfully, Mark Driscoll has written a book of systematic theology that is not so difficult to swallow. In fact, I think many people will read Vintage Jesus without realizing that the book really is an exercise in systematic theology (Christology to be precise).

Driscoll has a way with words. His writing is clear, concise, humorous and even fittingly irreverent in its course. More to the point, Driscoll's writing is persistently faithful to Scripture. In an age where Christian scholars and popular authors or abandoning Scripture, Driscoll clings tenaciously to the Word of God. That is not to say that all Christians will agree with all of Driscoll's conclusions. Obviously, those who take the integrity of Scripture seriously can still disagree on certain issues. But overall, Driscoll presents a picture of Jesus that is unquestionably Biblical.

The only weakness in this book is an apologetic one. This book really is written for nominal Christians of the less than deeply intellectual variety. Because Driscoll adheres to such a high view of Scripture, he presents the Bible as truth without really defending that assumption. I don't think that is wrong. We need more: "Thus saith the Lord" preaching. The problem is that we live in a generation where many will find that intellectually less than satisfying. To be a true apologetic work, the questions and concerns of postmodernism would need to be more deeply addressed than they are here.

Still, this is a minor quibble. Vintage Jesus is a book that could be given to someone exploring the faith. It could also be read by a veteran Christian with great benefit. It is a Christology text that I will use again and again as I look to share with Christian and non-Christian alike who Jesus is.

If Pacey Got Saved: A Review of Blue Like Jazz

A few months ago, I read Donald Miller's Searching for God Knows What. I thought it was a fairly strong book exploring what the Gospel did and did not mean. Thus, it was with great eagerness that I recently read Miller's earlier book Blue Like Jazz. Blue Like Jazz was certainly a book with great critical acclaim. It has been a huge seller, being particularly influential among young evangelicals. I really thought I was going to read a great book.

You might have gathered by now that I was disappointed. It is not that book is terrible. Miller is too good a writer for any book that he writes to be terrible. There is an appropriate mixture of humor and emotion. Miller's opening chapters establishing the sinfulness of all men and women are particularly strong. I will refer to them again. Yet, despite solid writing and great opening chapters, the book suffers several weaknesses.

The first weakness is the emotional tone. I find the whole book a little overwrought. I thought that painfully introspective people with GRE-level vocabulary only existed on Dawson's Creek. Apparently, I was wrong. There is also a colony of such people in Oregon. If Pacey had gotten saved, he would have written Blue Like Jazz. (Maybe Dawson would have turned it into a movie). There is a certain stage of life where running at a ragged emotional level is considered deep. I am 40. I am past that stage so much of the book's emotion is lost on me. I only find it wearying.

Also lost on me is the constant attempt to prove that Christianity is cool. I get it Miller. You drink. You smoke. You go on long drives alone with single women in your car. You're not a legalist. You have made Christianity cool. I am a square. I don't smoke. I don't drink. Is the attraction of Jesus that He lets you live your life like before? That's a cheap shot- I know. Actually, I think no less of Miller for having a beer or smoking a tobacco pipe. That is his right. But Paul says in Romans that Christians have to be careful about the gray areas. He says that we should keep our choices between us and the Lord so that we don't cause another brother or sister to stumble. Miller could have advertised the smoking and drinking less. There are other ways to advertise how great it is to know Christ. ( We won't even discuss some of the mildly off-color language).

The last criticism is a simple one. Miller barely mentions the Bible. This is a mistake. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Miller could have engaged in the same type of writing project without banishing the Scriptures to the sideline. Still, Miller is not, as some critics have claimed, unBiblical. The Bible may not be fore fronted but it is present in all that Miller writes. Miller may write that he does not know his Bible well. But in making this claim, Miller seems like a master poker player who understates his ability by saying that he has played once or twice. When reading Blue Like Jazz, don't mistake humility for ignorance. It is not that Miller doesn't reflect Biblical truth. It is just that he would have done well to give it a more central place.

In many ways, the criticisms here are unfair. Reading Searching for God Knows What first heightened my expectations. Blue Like Jazz is certainly worth a read. There are unsaved friends who I might give this book too. But first I have to make sure that they liked Dawson's Creek.

Taking It to the Next Level: Some Thoughts

A few weeks ago, a friend gave me a copy of David Gregory's Dinner with a Perfect Stranger. It was certainly an enjoyable read, a book that could be used with great profit in introducing non-Christians to Jesus. In his first book, Gregory was very clear in his point and purpose and spoke openly to many of the objections that non-Christians may have to faith.

Gregory's second book, The Next Level, lacks some the clarity of the first. It takes a while to really understand what the parable is all about. Even at the end, elements of what Gregory is saying remain unclear. Unfortunately, I expect that Gregory's second book will appeal to a far narrower audience than his first one. I suspect that this book will really only make sense to evangelical Christians and even then the less informed among evangelicals may have a hard time deciphering what Gregory is talking about. I don't want to discuss what I believe Gregory's point to be. I think that would be akin to stealing the punch line. It would detract from the book. I would just say that Gregory's second book seems to be more of an "inside joke" than the first one.

Still, all that being said, I recommend the book. I read in less than an hour while my son (home sick from school) watched Barney. It is certainly worth that time investment. For those who have an interest in serving Jesus and making their lives count for Him, the book makes some crucial points, however implict they may be. I plan to reread the books in a few weeks. Gregory has certainly produced a work that is worthy of more than passing consideration.

When Historians Become History: A Review of Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography

It was a few months ago that I picked up David S. Brown's Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography at Borders. I have to admit that I bought the book more out of a sense of obligation than a sense of anticipation. I have never been a big fan of biography, intellectual or otherwise. But I knew that Hofstadter had thrown a giant shadow over twentieth-century historiography. Few historians in those hundred years could claim to have the influence that Hofstadter did. Plus, I had read several of Hofstadter's works and thoroughly enjoyed them. The liberalism that Hofstadter championed was not the liberalism that I was familiar with. It seemed to have more charm. Its prose was certainly more engaging. So, I decided to pick up Brown's book figuring I would eventually slog through it.

Well, there was no slogging with this book. Brown has written an engaging history, one every bit as well-written as those penned by Hofstadter himself. Brown finds several factors that contributed to the direction and power of Hofstadter's work. One, was Hofstadter's ethnic origins. Being of Jewish descent, Hofstadter stood out in what still remained a largely WASP profession. It was amazing to read that even into the 50's Jews were being turned down for history jobs at prestigious universities because of their ethnic heritage. Hofstadter's Jewish roots put him outside of the historical mainstream and allowed him to come at historical questions from unique angles. That is not to say that Hofstadter always benefited from the perspectives of his Judaism. Hofstadter was sometimes given to exaggerating the anti-Semitism of certain groups and movements. His charge that Populists were particularly anti-Semitic especially fails to hold up under scrutiny. But that really does not detract from the perspective his ethnic heritage provided.

Another factor that shaped Hofstadter's thought was a deep distrust of democracy. Having lived through both the fascist regimes of World War II and the witch hunting of the McCarthy era, Hofstadter became very distrustful of popular culture and political power. This led to the harsh criticism of Populism and Progressivism that characterized much of his work. While Progressive historians had virtually lionized the working class, Hofstadter was very distrustful. His desire was to restore the intellectual to positions of power in politics and culture. Interestingly, Hofstadter eschewed political assignments and positions far more than many of his contemporaries. But this does not belie the fact that Hofstadter remain distrustful of power in the hands of the lower classes. This distrust did not last for Hofstadter's entire life. After the thorough rejection of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential race, Hofstadter came to believe that the masses were not entirely gullible. In Hofstadter's estimation, Goldwater's loss by a wide margin proved that the working classes could sometimes use power wisely.

A final factor that shaped Hofstadter's work was his use of social scientific methods and his subsequent penchant for psychological, non-rational explanation of historical behavior. Rejecting the economic rationalism of the Progressive school, Hofstadter looked for more psychologically based explanations for human action. Thus, Hofstadter became known for phrases like "the paranoid style." Since Hofstadter rarely did archival work, relying instead on published sources, it is his use of social scientific methods that was his enduring legacy. It was this turn that inspired a generation of scholars that followed.

Brown has the right mix of admiration and criticism in his book. He recognizes what made Hofstadter great, while also fairly elucidating his failures. To me, the story of Hofstadter presents a path not taken in the story of liberalism. Though Hofstadter was liberal, he was very distrustful of the extreme left. His very brief experience in the Communist party made him see little difference between extreme left and right. Modern liberalism could use some of Hofstadter's distrust for extremes on both sides of the political spectrum.

In short, Brown's book is one of the best history books I have read in a long time. I look forward to his next book on the historiographical school that came out of the University of Wisconsin in the early part of the 20th century.

Man, O, Man- John Kasson's Houdini, Tarzan, and the Perfect Man

It was in the early 1990's that I first read John Kasson's Rudeness and Civility. At that point, I told myself that I wanted to pick up a copy of his book on Coney Island, Amusing the Millions. I still have not gotten a copy of that book. But when Micawber Books in Princeton went out of business, I did pick up a highly discounted copy of Kasson's Houdini, Tarzan, and the Perfect Man: The White Male Body and the Challenge of Modernity in America. I am glad that I did. Kasson has written an excellent book dealing with the topic of masculinity in America at the turn of the century.

There is little in Kasson's book that is truly novel in terms of historiography or methodology. Kasson tells the now familiar story of the redefinition(s) of masculinity and manhood that took place at the start of the twentieth-century. What makes the book remarkable is that Kasson tells the story well. Through a study of Ernest Sandow (think early 20th century Arnold Schwarzenegger), Houdini, and Edgar Rice Burroughs, Kasson is able to forcefully illustrate the shift from a Victorian model of masculinity to a modern one. The tensions of white masculinity in the early 20th century are well seen in the lives of these men or their fictional creations.

Kasson's book has several weaknesses. First, the book has a tendency to wander from the subject at hand. Kasson can't seem to resist bunny trails that have seemingly little to do with the subject at hand. The saving grace is that these bunny trails are very interesting. So. Kasson's wandering mind is easily forgiven. More troubling is the fact that it may be hard for Kasson to defend the subjects for his study. Why include a fictional character like Tarzan but not a real life man like TR? Further, Kasson does not give enough discussion of the role that religion played in this new defining of manhood. This is especially strange in light of the fairly abundant literature about muscular Christianity at the turn of the 20th century. Still, these are not major flaws. In the end, Kasson has written a book that should be of interest to both academic and popular audiences.