Most helpful customer reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thoughtful, Balanced View, Feb 7 2003
By A Customer
One of the good things about Carson's assessment is that he provides thoughtful, balanced critiques. He doesn't make "certain" claims where certainty does not exist. Unlike much of David Wells' blather, Carson will not make claims about things he cannot back up. I find it interesting that the Brownstown pastor didn't find Carson's work subtly enlightening. The fact that this Brownstown pastor gives Stanley Grenz's work as alternative shows her naive understanding of the issues. The Brownstown pastor indicts her own wits with her claim that she is a doctoral student. If this person is a doctoral student, then Carson's assessment is right on. See section 4, chapters 11 and 12. Grenz work is simplistic and doesn't consider early Greek thought which would alter his analysis of "Modern" individualism. Carson would never make this mistake.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good book to get a big picture on postmodernism, Jan 30 2003
By A Customer
First, I admit, as some have already mentioned, the book does tend to be at times needlessly verbose. Moreover, it is hard not to walk away from the book feeling like Carson hasn't fully appreciated all that postmodernism has to offer. Mind you, I have great respect for D.A. Carson and his ability to do exegesis and still keep in mind the big picture--even if he may at times oversimplify. (I know very few scholars who keep exegesis and theology hand in hand.) But one does at times get the sense that he could have made the many insightful points without using all the excerpts he adds in the book--I suppose there are some politics involved in bookwriting ;-). I would have to admit, however, that the range of material--not just in content but also his theological method--are exemplary especially for Christians of our generation who are prone to confuse sentimentality with spirituality. The few above reviewers who mentioned that Carson has not fully understood Hauerwas, Grenz and so on seems to hold a position on postmodernism which Carson keeps a safe distance from. Carson may not have read every book on hermeneutics, postmodernism, process theology, or the like under the sun but at the end of the day, he does very well with what he knows. I'm almost reminded of the philosophy majors who assailed Francis Schaeffer for not having first hand reading of all the philosophers he critiqued. But he spoke from what he knew and he was still greatly used to edify the church. After all, there are many "Schaefferians" who have far surpassed his knowledge but still hold his name with honor. I understand that one shouldn't embark on writing a book simply because he/she read a book or two on it (as is often the case in the Evangelical circle) but lets not go the other extreme and forbid that we say anything about the subject or critique another view until we have complete knowledge of it--and fall into scholasiticism of another kind. I have learned so much on the subject of postmodernism and pluralism through the reading of this book. I recommend it very highly especially if you have the time. If the book does get too tedious, Gene Edward Veith's "Postmodern Times" might be a good alternative.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not as Good as It Ought to Be, Dec 26 2002
By A Customer
It may help to know that I am a conservative, Evangelical pastor and doctoral student, and a fan of most of Carson's exegetical books. However, I am astonished at the praise this bloated and simplistic book has received. For all its length (which is excessive by far), it really is not any more insightful than other books available. Carson takes a rather simplistic and incindiary view of post-modern pluralism (ala G.E. Veith), and then offers his own simplistic response. Carson tries to cover nearly everything which pluralism may touch, but often in too much detail (or rather unecessary detail), and then contrastingly in too little detail (i.e., the other reviewer's comments about Carson's flimsy understanding of Hauwerwas are correct). I do think the book is mistitled, if it is intended for a non-Evangelical audience. But, since it is almost certainly aimed at Evangelical Bible College students (or first year sems), I guess it will have to do as a means to rally the troops. For myself, I would title it : Carson's Simple Encyclopdedia of Pluralism, or Everything Don Carson Thought You Need to Know about Post-Modernism. What really puzzles me is why this book recieved any kind of award since it is neither well-written, nor well-edited. In fact, the book is poorly edited being vastly too long and oftens seems like a disjointed or patchwork collection of previous essays. Of course, these are the same people who keep giving awards to the idiotic and sub-Christian, The Prayer of Jabez! (see especially Wilson's The Mantra of Jabez). In conclusion, if you ever wondered what D.A. Carson thinks about a cultural topic, consult this book. If you want an insightful, well-written, well edited and reasonably concise introduction to Christian view of post-modern pluralism, look elsewhere.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most recent customer reviews
|