First off I don't think the topic for us should be, 'Should we read controversial authors so that we can answer or benefit from them?" That is a no brainer. I think the topic should be, "Should we read controversial authors and recommend them to the whole Christian community?". By endorsing a book you are endorsing a person for the most part. And isn't Peter Liethart under scrutiny right now?

__________________
R. Martin Snyder (Moderator)

1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

But a stalwart like Michael Horton--a man who has rightly been a Champion of the Reformed Faith and a hero to many, including myself--recommended this book. And no, recommending a book is not the same as recommending a person. We separate the people from the issues.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

But a non suspecting audience who doesn't know Liethart won't know specifics. And that is where you and I are going to disagree.

I may personally recommend a controversial writer to someone in front of me. But I wouldn't put a blanket endorsement upon a controversial authors book.

We are just going to disagree on this one Jacob.

And I am right btw.

I do think it was a poor decision on Horton's part.

I think we can say that he should not give it an official endorsement while nonetheless recognizing what is praiseworthy in it.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

What if the work is the best work available on an important issue. Are you going to say to a person, uh well, I'll get back to you at some point after someone that I agree with more writes a book? Until then, just know that such and such position is BAD or GOOD, as the case may be.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

CT,

Go back and reread what I have said in the last few posts. I think you can tell what my position would be. BTW, you are making a hypothetical situation up that doesn't exist in my opinion. I know Jacob thinks N.T Wright does the best job on some issues but I would personally steer away from him for sure. He has to much baggage and I believe others have written on Topics that he has addressed with sufficiency.

Okay, what is a better book on postmodernism? I am relatively new to the issue (I have some ideas on it though). At the very least, if there were all these other better books, I would assume Baker would have had second thoughts on publishing it.

Also to be fair to Horton, if all these other books existed, he probably would never have endorsed the book. People do not endorse book just to see their name in print.

CT

CT,

I am having a hard time believing a man such as yourself is relatively new to the issue of postmodernism. Especially since you have spent a lot of time in the philosophical and apologetical discussions on this forum. You are well read and very intelligent. You have to be pulling my leg on this one. If not I am surprised.

Another thing. I didn't make a judgement on the book. I have no idea what it is like. I don't know why Baker published it. But Postmodernism is not a new subject. David Wells started writing about it years ago. I know D. A. Carson has written on it. Let me make myself clear. I still think Dr. Horton made a poor decision by endorsing the book in front of everyone in general. I didn't say He shouldn't ever recommend the book to a friend. But I would personally rather find another author on the subject.. How about the Gagging of God by Carson for starters.

I also want you to acknowledge that I said....."I may personally recommend a controversial writer to someone in front of me. (meaning a person I am talking to personally) But I wouldn't put a blanket endorsement upon a controversial authors book."

I believe a blanket endorsement of a poor theologians book can be dangerous. Even if the book I am endorsing is very good. As an example, a person may know who Horton is but not who Leithart is? An unsuspecting reader may mistake Horton's endorsement of Leithart's book as saying this guy is okay with me in general, when in fact Leithart's views are very opposed to what I believe is sound biblical teaching in a lot of his federal vision thinking.

Let me make myself clear about another thing. I can not judge the motives of Baker Bookhouse nor of Dr. Horton. You are running me into an uncharted area. I don't know either of them. The book might be good. Leithart is not an ignorant man. But that still doesn't change my thinking concerning a general public book endorsement.

I hope I made myself clearer.

Be Encouraged brother,

It is good but it was also written 12-ish years ago. Things change. Sometimes the arguments that worked then don't quite address the same issue. And also Carson's book is huge, which would deter (perhaps wrongly, but still...) the man in the pew. Leithart's book isn't even 200 pages.

Let's be fair to the context, and separate the man from the issues (multiple ones, to make it worse) involved. Would Horton see his comments as a blanket endorsement? Doubtful. Is Horton mature enough to separate men from (other irrelevant) issues? Of course.

If someone is as unsuspecting as you say they are, then I doubt they will really understand what Leithart is saying on FV issues. I read his blog occasionally and I consider myself somewhat schooled in philosophy, and I can barely keep up with him.
No, you are walking into an uncharted area. You are considering--and I don't believe this is fair to Messrs Horton and Leithart, not to mention Baker, to read back motives into their actions.. No offense meant.

It also appears that some are assuming that Leithart is going to "sneak a little FV in on the side." I am not convinced.

Jacob,
I believe you are doing to me what you did to me in the Theonomy thread. You are going beyond what I am saying. Reread what I wrote. Read it more slowly. Don't react emotionally. Just for example... in this quote,...

... you seem to be implying that I am reading back motives into their actions. Where have I done this?

One more thing. You know of books that would be comparable and being more updated and contemporary. You read more than I do. You can give some recommendations besides Leithart. My point was that this subject has been written about. CT said he was new to this.

I realize that I sounded emotional. I wasn't. I just worked out. I can't get too excited either way at the moment.

As I understand it, I am seeing people fail to separate the men from the issues. I was understanding you to read Leithart's FV back into this book and then judge this book accordingly. Forgive me if I read it wrongly. Here is how I would handle it: If I knew a better, contemporary response to PM, I would first recommend that (see below). If there wasn't one, I would first summarize said arguments and have coffee with someone and just "talk about it." I think I am good at that with people. But, the above two don't work, and they still want to "read" something, perhaps even Leithart, ok, I might recommend this and say, "Here is what he says is good, bad, whatever."

This is tricky because postmodernism has morphed. First of all, Gene Edward Veith wrote Postmodern Times. It was good 5 years ago. It is probably too basic but it would be the first book I give to the man in the pew.

A Christian defense of postmodernism (don't ask why) would be James KA Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? I probably wouldn't recommend this one.

I am not dismissing Carson's Gagging of God. He makes good points.

For a more academic read, see Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition. This isn't responding to postmodernism, per se, but to its step-cousin.

there are a few others that slip my mind. I used to know the answer to this question. Good question. Sorry if I came across angry.

Go back and read me again. I forgive you. Just slow down a bit. Watch the accusations also. You accused me of judging motives and I wasn't judging anyone's motives.

You are tired. I can tell.

Sure: the present reality is that people will often read undesirables (of course, another present reality is that there are far too many undesirables to be familiar with all of them). But my point is that I think the evangelicals have often fostered a culture of reading and supporting (by buying in order to refute, and so forth) what is pretty much worthless. And we kowtow to their academic credentials --we act as if so and so must have something worthwhile to say just because he got his Ph.D. under Sanders, or whatever. I'm questioning our long term strategy. And I say that as someone who has at least sampled Wright, Sanders, Dodd and Schweitzer.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

You are probably right. Steve Schlissel said as much when he was on one of his tirades against Reformed theology. And, as much as I have a problem with Mr. Schlissel, I tend to agree. Instead of getting angry at him there needs to be an intelligent and loving response to some of these off the cuff answers to the genuine 'inquiring minds want to know' sort.

I love our confessions but we also need to engage the spirit of the age. This can be done (and should!) with our confessions in hand but not in the manner which your friend experienced.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

If I were Horton and asked for an endorsement, I would write the endorsement, but include a strong disclaimer of Leithart's other books and insist that I would allow publication of my endorsement only if the disclaimer was included!

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC

------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon

For a while it seemed that J.I. Packer endorsed every book that came out.

__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."—B.H. Carroll

Leithart aside, my posts in this thread was a reaction against what I deemed to be a, as I think Marty hinted at, a blossoming Steelite mentality.