This book is just amazing. The writing is excellent. The command of the material is superb. The examples hold your attention. And the insight into the flux that is modernity is worth every second spent.

This book is just amazing. The writing is excellent. The command of the material is superb. The examples hold your attention. And the insight into the flux that is modernity is worth every second spent.

With friends and family members ranging from Dawkins-esque “evolution kills your God” to “evolution is a myth” young-earthers, I wanted to find something written by someone with the scientific credentials to really speak about these issues. To my delight, Dr. Miller, a biologist teaching at Brown University, is not only capable and comfortable with the science, but sensitive to the emotional reasons behind the Darwin-bashing, fair in his treatment (he’s read both sides, and personally met-and sometimes debated-all of them), and personally an informed and devout Roman Catholic. He can write. He can put together an argument. And he informs me as I read. Perfect!

This is still classic house. Brainy, nervy, sarcastic, medically interesting. Could be House at its best considering the poor storyline and poor, tired performances and themes of the season three.

This book presents in very condensed form the basic framework of the New Perspective on Paul from one of its most systematic and theologically informed architect, N. T. Wright. I’ve been moving very slowly through this book, and hope to blog quite a bit on especially its chapter on justification, since Wright and the New Perspective have taken such a bruising on this very point. I suspect the criticism is driven more by ideology than exegesis, but more thinking is required.

I led a book discussion on this at my church, and everyone found it to be both an excellent platform to discussion (a) the ordo salutus, and (b) the virtues, as well as being well written. The author provides a great spring board for discussing many issues. I only wish he’d gone a little further into a discussion of the doctrine of theosis/divinization, and some eschatological context would have been helpful as well.

The brilliance and genius of hearing Glenn Gould’s recording from the 50’s is matched only by the juxtaposition of his reprisal of the same, but coming at it as an elderly man in his 80’s. His mastery and respect of the material is breathtaking.

“We need to do a work of retrieval, in order to get a fruitful struggle going in our culture and society. . . . We don’t want to exaggerate our degrees of freedom. But they are not zero. And that means that coming to understand the moral sources of our civilization can make a difference, in so far as it can contribute to a new common understanding. We are not, indeed, locked in.” (96, 100-101)

Charles Taylor believes that we can dig down into the moral and ideological sources that got us where we are and bring those out again for purposes of critique. He builds a case for an ethic hidden under the solipsist individualism created by modernity, the ethic or ideal of authenticity. In The Malaise of Modernity he wants to discover a place from which such authenticity can engage in political debate in the face of soft despotism and the temptation of instrumental reason.

I’m interested in The Tipping Point because (1) it has been recommended to me so often by friends and family; and becuase (2) I want to know if I can apply its insights to my yahoo group jurgenmoltmann.com, and, perhaps, to other applications.

I wanted more Moltmann less Pannenberg, but it is mostly the other way around.