|
| 
 enlarge | Authors: Shane Claiborne, Chris Haw
Publisher: Zondervan
Category: Book
List Price: $16.99
Buy New: $11.55
You Save: $5.44 (32%)
New (45) Used (9) from $9.00
Rating:  32 reviews
Sales Rank: 2386
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 348
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.9 x 6 x 1.2
ISBN: 0310278422
Dewey Decimal Number: 261.70973
EAN: 9780310278429
ASIN: 0310278422
Publication Date: March 1, 2008
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Customer Reviews:
 It's Sad: Legitimate theological issues are hampered by awful logic. April 29, 2008
76 out of 104 found this review helpful
I borrowed this book from a friend of mine and because of the subject matter I spent a great deal of time working my way through it in an attempt to evaluate it as honestly as I could. Some of the authors' ideas and positions (a more community based Christian Church and non-violence) have merit and are worth further exploration. If you like these ideas, I recommend you read an essay by Theodore Koontz titled "Christian Nonviolence: An Interpretation." I really do think these are points that are worthy of consideration.
That said the logic, scholarship, facts, reasoning, and rhetoric in Jesus for President is awful. If this book were written as a persuasive essay, any good professor would fail the authors. Two logical fallacies that the authors make are circular reasoning and the straw man fallacy. On pages 67-69, the authors argue that because within the gospels Christ uses words that have political connotations within the Roman/Greek world there is an inherently political nature in Christ's teaching. These are terms like "evangelion," "Savior," "Lord," and "Emmanuel." The problem is that Christ would have spoken in Aramaic and Christ himself did not write the gospels. His disciples and followers wrote the gospels down somewhere between 30-80 years after his death and resurrection. When the gospels were written they were intended for a mostly Greek/Roman world audience so the authors translated Christ's words into the language and terms that the Greek/Roman world understood and identified with. This is very similar to modern publishing. There are British and American versions of the Harry Potter books. The reason is that there are terms and idioms within the British version that the American audience will not understand, so the publisher translates the novel from British English to a more American English. The writers of the gospels did the same thing. They used terms and idioms that their target audience would understand. Therefore, this means that the authors' argument that Christ used political language is based on a translation and writing technique that only leads around in circles. It is possible that Christ did use political language, perhaps even some of the terms the authors credit to him, but we cannot determine so from this argument. While they don't always commit this particular fallacy in reference to Biblical passages the authors do often impose a modern understanding of politics and life on Biblical passages rather than evaluating them in the original context.
The straw man logical fallacy is where you misrepresent the other side's position so it will be easier to argue against it. The authors commit this error numerous times. One good example is on page 106. Here they assume what all people mean in a specific statement. "In regard to Christian politics, some might say, "Sure my citizenship is ultimately in heaven, but I have to live in the `real' world now." In other words acting heavenly on earth is too risky; or, Jesus was the Son of God, but he was not realistic; or, following the Sermon on the Mount will not work on earth, so it will have to suffice in heaven. This interpretation basically comes to mean that my citizenship in heaven means nothing in the real world." The reason this is a misrepresentation is that people could and do mean several different things by "live in the `real' world." Couldn't they simply mean the earth is not heaven? Couldn't they mean that what Christ says is an ideal that does not exist on earth? I sometimes use this phrase and I have never meant it this way. I have always understood it to mean something like that in this `real' world (which includes many more places than luxury loaded America) there are people who are in horrific situations where they will have to choose between two evils. This is far from an ideal thing and is certainly not good; but problems and questions like this really do exist and need resolution. I find it irresponsible and arrogant for those of us in peaceful, free countries (America and the western world especially) to assume our definition of the `real' world is something that applies everywhere else.
The authors also commit internal factorial inconstancies on pages 281 and 331. On page 281 the authors cite a specific source and claim that as of 2006 there have been 654,965 civilian deaths in Iraq since the US invasion. While this figure sounded a bit inflated to me, knowing the exact number of war related deaths in Iraq is a near impossibility, so I was willing to accept it may be right. However, on page 331 the authors explicitly state, "And publicly remember the Iraqis (around one million) who have died since the US invasion of 2003." So somehow in fifty pages another 350,000 people died? Which figure is right and why does this discrepancy exist?
An additional example of this book's factorial inconstancies occurs on pages 184 and 256. On page 184 the authors state that 36% of the US government's budget ($0.36 of every dollar of tax paid) goes to the Department of Defense or Military. Then on page 256 they claim that nearly half of every tax dollar goes the Department of Defense. So which percentage is it? Is it 36% or something close to 50%?
Both of these inconstancies could have any number of explanations that are not malicious, and I am not accusing the authors of deliberately misrepresenting the facts. They (the facts) could be a hazard of having dual authorship, a lazy editor, or the use of multiple, conflicting sources for the same information. The reason I am pointing out these inconstancies is that they suggest the authors did not do their homework, take the material seriously, or did not know very much about the subject they were discussing.
In addition, several 'facts' in the book are just wrong. Calling AK-47s US made weapons (they're Russian, you can look it up on Wikipida), claims made about Biblical passages and history that scholars and historians will heavily dispute, and a statement on page 178 that the US has the greatest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world (once again it's Russia) all weaken the authors' arguments. Anyone of these errors in facts or logic could be forgiven individually, but taken collectively they are quite condemning. Is it really reasonable to take the arguments of anyone seriously if he cannot get simple facts right and disagrees with himself?
These errors do not mean the authors' main points are invalid. But it does seem they did not do the basic research needed for a high school essay, much less a published book. For this reason alone, I will not recommend this book to anyone. Read the essay I mentioned above as it supports many of the same positions and commits none of the fallacies these authors do. I really do wish these authors had written a better book as arguing poorly for these points helps no one and brings us no where.
 One of the best of our time... April 21, 2008
6 out of 13 found this review helpful
Claiborne and Haw present one of the most thorough representations of what kind of impact Christianity can have in this world. Time and time again the author finds themselves thinking, "Wow, that's a really tough concept."
Exactly.
Jesus claimed that if we desire to follow him, we must take up our cross and follow after Him. This requires things like forgiving others, turning the other cheek, and actually praying for those that seek to do violence towards us. Claiborne and Haw leave no table unturned as they show the relationship between Church and State (ancient, past, and present) and how we ended up in the mess we're in.
Kudos to these men for playing the role of prophet to a Church that doesn't want to hear it and a world that is dying to.
 Puh-leeease ... leave Shane alone !! April 17, 2008
16 out of 65 found this review helpful
For those who are looking for yet another reason to dislike Claiborne's misguided neo-quasi-Marxist ideological conclusions toward what can (and as Claiborne would insist, "should") happen with the Gospel of Jesus Christ without the assistance of the Church, then please, for the love and peace of God, do not read any further. Do not read this book, do not discuss it (since you have not read it), and do not cite it. Let dented, mad theology die a whimpering death. I'm of the opinion that Claiborne contributes nothing to that pool of rhetoric, in that his own rhetoric is unfounded in Scripture (don't believe me: look no further than the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Ephesians, perhaps). I've moved beyond criticizing Claiborne, and have even moved beyond his follower-wannabe's who chant, "I worship Jesus, not Christianity" (which, in itself, should demonstrate the lack of reflection his followers exercise, but I digress), and have moved to the far more lethal group of opponents to Claiborne, who do more to excise the diversity within the unity of the Church than Claiborne has yet to do (and since he lacks the critical eye, I doubt he ever *will* do, either). I do not regret my critique of *Irresistible Revolution,* but I refuse to repeat it here: you got that? There's nothing new here, and it's not Claiborne's fault that Zondervan -you know, that publisher of Bibles - hasn't realized that yet, and throws their client another writing project. All flash, all meta-narrative, no new substance (not even the structure is novel: what's new about marginalia?). There, I've said it. If only Claiborne's nay-sayers would catch a glimpse of their own "comments in the margins," perhaps they'd tire of their own novelty and lay off this book's shortcomings. Claiborne gets two stars for saying nothing new but attracting the "Watchman" comic book crowd: detractors get the one star for contributing to the ungodly mindlessness therein.
moved to act yet again April 8, 2008
8 out of 11 found this review helpful
If you've read Claiborne's first book, you will not need to bother reading this review. He will move you to anger, move you to tears, but ultimately he compels you to change the way you think and, more importantly, to change the way you live. The first book was full of emotion and experience and this one is packed with scholarship and unique insights that theologians might consider commonplace, but for the rest of us, wow! This book will change your view of faith and politics. And, the layout and design is creatively executed and easy to read. Bravo!
CREATIVITY OVERHAUL April 8, 2008
9 out of 19 found this review helpful
"Jesus for President" is a great book, with great documentation from the authors. First, allow me to say that I am a big fan of creativity and "edgy" books, however, Zondervan has gone way to far this time with Claiborne's new book with all of the excerpts outside of the main text. Claiborne's first book, "The Irresistible Revolution" was creative and very influential to people of my generation (young adults). It was easy to read and filled with many great stories about the beauty of Christ. You will find yourself reading all of the stuff around the main text and losing focus of what Claiborne is trying to communicate in "Jesus for President". Much of the print is small, many of the words are misspelled (intentional I believe), and a lot of it is just a bunch of random babling (babling outside of the main text that is). The book will be very helpful if you just read the main text, but one cannot help but desire much of the stuff that Claiborne has in the illustrative stuff outside of the book. Great read, but horrible and overdone work on Zondervan's part for trying to be way to creative and edgy. Keep Claiborne's work simple, for that is where he is greatest in ministry; I mean, his ministry is called "The Simple Way," right?
|
|
|
Powered by CBN AssociateStore
| |
