Take a photo of a barcode or cover
shelfreflectionofficial's Reviews (844)
Ironically, I was shocked by the immorality in this book.
I would rate this book R for raunchy.
The first Brian Freeman book I ever read was The Night Bird (2017). And it is night and day different than this book. Apparently, at some point in the interim 12 years between this book and that one, Freeman matured and realized he didn’t need to have something sexual on every page to sell a book. Genius.
I started this Jonathan Stride series when book 8— Marathon— came out and found that one to be a really good book. I figured I should go back and read the series straight through. Immoral was so bad that I have no desire to wade through the series trying to figure out when Freeman changed his writing style. I will only be reading new books in this series from now on.
So what makes this book so bad?
To be clear, it’s not like I never read books that have swearing or some sexual innuendo. I prefer cleaner books but I realize to eliminate it completely would take out a lot of otherwise pretty good books. So I can look past mild content without giving a terrible review.
But this book was very explicit. And not just one or two pages of the book. Like literally every page.
Every single male character was a perv who cannot be in the same room with a woman and not think about sex. And every female character believed they were controlling all the men in the world by revealing or flaunting their body or sexuality. It was offensive on multiple levels— the detailed descriptions of said bodies and sex and the idea that men and women are so primal.
There is a pornographic image of the missing (17 yr old) girl (that she created) that becomes a piece of evidence and almost every time it is referenced it is given the descriptor ‘amazing’— even by our protagonist, the heroic Jonathan Stride. Regardless of the circumstances, it’s sickening to me, but to add to it that the girl is missing, presumed dead, maybe raped, and the characters are sexualizing her… who are these people?!
To top off the sexual content, there is also a hefty amount of f-words and other swearing, which is also uncalled for.
The books where I can look past some questionable content or some swearing, there is at least a very engaging plot or suspenseful writing that can overshadow the bad stuff. Unfortunately, this book didn’t even have that. I honestly would put the case at hand as secondary to the filth.
A brief synopsis, if you’ve read this far and have no idea what I’m talking about: A 17-year-old girl, Rachel, known to have questionable character and a history of manipulation, goes missing. The prime suspect being her stepfather (she may or may not be sleeping with), the secondary suspects being another teenager who has a crush on her and that guy’s girlfriend who obviously hates her for that reason. The plot is a jerking around of: did she just run away from a volatile home life and is playing games with everyone, or did foul play actually occur?
A little further than halfway through the book we have the courtroom drama as they prosecute one of the suspects. This was the best part of the book because it focused on the meat and facts of the case. But it was short-lived.
I can’t even tell you if the ending was shocking or predictable because I just wanted to be done with it and I didn’t like any of the characters. Book-8-Jonathan-Stride is a better dude, so I’m going to pretend this book is unconnected so I don’t taint his future self.
And one more note of warning: this book takes place in Duluth, MN and ends in Las Vegas where Stride ends up settling down for awhile per the summary of the next few books (titled Stripped and Stalked). So if things are this explicit in Duluth, imagine how raunchy his life/career gets when he moves to Vegas. The aforementioned book 8 (the GOOD one), he is back in Duluth. So let’s just skip the Vegas years and pretend they never happened.
So here is my recommendation: FLEE FROM THIS BOOK. And read one of Freeman’s other (newer) books! The hyperlink of his name here will take you to the other books of his I have read that all come highly recommended!
I would rate this book R for raunchy.
The first Brian Freeman book I ever read was The Night Bird (2017). And it is night and day different than this book. Apparently, at some point in the interim 12 years between this book and that one, Freeman matured and realized he didn’t need to have something sexual on every page to sell a book. Genius.
I started this Jonathan Stride series when book 8— Marathon— came out and found that one to be a really good book. I figured I should go back and read the series straight through. Immoral was so bad that I have no desire to wade through the series trying to figure out when Freeman changed his writing style. I will only be reading new books in this series from now on.
So what makes this book so bad?
To be clear, it’s not like I never read books that have swearing or some sexual innuendo. I prefer cleaner books but I realize to eliminate it completely would take out a lot of otherwise pretty good books. So I can look past mild content without giving a terrible review.
But this book was very explicit. And not just one or two pages of the book. Like literally every page.
Every single male character was a perv who cannot be in the same room with a woman and not think about sex. And every female character believed they were controlling all the men in the world by revealing or flaunting their body or sexuality. It was offensive on multiple levels— the detailed descriptions of said bodies and sex and the idea that men and women are so primal.
There is a pornographic image of the missing (17 yr old) girl (that she created) that becomes a piece of evidence and almost every time it is referenced it is given the descriptor ‘amazing’— even by our protagonist, the heroic Jonathan Stride. Regardless of the circumstances, it’s sickening to me, but to add to it that the girl is missing, presumed dead, maybe raped, and the characters are sexualizing her… who are these people?!
To top off the sexual content, there is also a hefty amount of f-words and other swearing, which is also uncalled for.
The books where I can look past some questionable content or some swearing, there is at least a very engaging plot or suspenseful writing that can overshadow the bad stuff. Unfortunately, this book didn’t even have that. I honestly would put the case at hand as secondary to the filth.
A brief synopsis, if you’ve read this far and have no idea what I’m talking about: A 17-year-old girl, Rachel, known to have questionable character and a history of manipulation, goes missing. The prime suspect being her stepfather (she may or may not be sleeping with), the secondary suspects being another teenager who has a crush on her and that guy’s girlfriend who obviously hates her for that reason. The plot is a jerking around of: did she just run away from a volatile home life and is playing games with everyone, or did foul play actually occur?
A little further than halfway through the book we have the courtroom drama as they prosecute one of the suspects. This was the best part of the book because it focused on the meat and facts of the case. But it was short-lived.
I can’t even tell you if the ending was shocking or predictable because I just wanted to be done with it and I didn’t like any of the characters. Book-8-Jonathan-Stride is a better dude, so I’m going to pretend this book is unconnected so I don’t taint his future self.
And one more note of warning: this book takes place in Duluth, MN and ends in Las Vegas where Stride ends up settling down for awhile per the summary of the next few books (titled Stripped and Stalked). So if things are this explicit in Duluth, imagine how raunchy his life/career gets when he moves to Vegas. The aforementioned book 8 (the GOOD one), he is back in Duluth. So let’s just skip the Vegas years and pretend they never happened.
So here is my recommendation: FLEE FROM THIS BOOK. And read one of Freeman’s other (newer) books! The hyperlink of his name here will take you to the other books of his I have read that all come highly recommended!
“Nina realized she had been living her entire life on borrowed time. Now the moment had arrived when her story reached its end. Destiny had finally caught up to her.”
Leap day. People born on this day celebrate their birthdays in a variety of fun ways.
And some celebrate in not so fun ways— like murdering a mother, father, and newborn baby girl every four years.
A leap day serial killer is the plot of book two in this series. Following her high profile case in book one, The Cipher, Nina Guerrera and her newly compiled FBI specialty team—made up of her, a criminal profiler, a computer wiz, and a former Navy SEAL— are investigating a double homicide/suicide case. The case escalates when possible ties to other double homicide/suicides across the country spanning decades are discovered and they realize they may have a bunch of triple murders on their hands!
Profiler Jeffrey Wade enlightens us on the mind of the suspected killer— a narcissist who also has Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)- “A black hole is an accurate description of an untreated psychopathic narcissist.” And now they must track down this murderous black hole in the desert of Phoenix, Arizona before more people die or he hides away undetected for another 4 years.
The urgency increases as they begin unraveling threads, putting Agent Guerrera firmly in the killer’s sights, forcing her to come to terms with part of her past she never knew she needed to.
It lives up to the same intense and suspenseful storyline as the first one and I really enjoyed it. This is shaping up to be a great series! The characters were, again, distinct and developed. Nina is the focus but we see her relationship with Wade and Kent progress in this one. And am I the only one that thinks Bianca is going to be officially joining the team in the not so distant future?? I think that would be a great addition in characters and plot possibilities. (Although, I’d prefer she stop using the f-word if Maldonado is going to bulk up Bianca’s lines in the next book.)
There were some points in the book that I felt there to be a bit of hand-holding in defining terms. For example, they made it seem like a killer’s ‘signature’ was some new term law enforcement officers had never heard of before. Or when the Spanish phrase ‘Dónde están mis hijos?’ was used Kent translated it “That means, ‘where are my children” and then the book says “Nina recalled that he spoke four languages.” And the collective reader audience goes: “Uh, yeah. We only speak one and a half languages and we all know what that means. Pipe down Kent, we didn’t need you for this.” (Okay… it was either children or Cheetos but I think we would have figured it out)
For the learners out there, here are three interesting things I learned while reading (besides the characteristics of narcissism that I’m trying to stop pinning on everyone I know…just jokes…. It’s only a couple people...)—
- Revenge filicide= Filicide is the technical term for the murder of one’s own offspring so revenge filicide is killing your child to get back at someone else. I’m glad I didn’t know this term before because if this was well-known, we would live in a very sad society indeed.
- “People with ASPD only make up about one to three percent of the overall population, but they constitute anywhere from forty to seventy percent of those in prison.”
I found this statistic a bit shocking! Especially because after reading Just Mercy you kinda start feeling like we need to get everyone out of prison. I did a little googling on this stat and I did find a study that indicated ASPD rates in prison to be anywhere between 50-80% depending on the study (and probably method of diagnosing). This particular study was researching violent acts done in prison by newly imprisoned people with ASPD and actually found that number to be fairly low calling into question the legal push for capital punishment for violent offenders with ASPD. I don’t know if I’m convinced and this leads me to more questions than I can find answers for and really has nothing to do with this story, but ANYWAY, it’s fascinating stuff, yeah?
- Nuyorican—/n(y)o͞oˈyôrēkən/)= a Puerto Rican living in the US, especially in New York City
So, in summation, if you haven’t read The Cipher, head over there first and read this series from the beginning. If you’ve already read book one, then continue forth, fellow reader— I believe you will be glad you did!
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
Leap day. People born on this day celebrate their birthdays in a variety of fun ways.
And some celebrate in not so fun ways— like murdering a mother, father, and newborn baby girl every four years.
A leap day serial killer is the plot of book two in this series. Following her high profile case in book one, The Cipher, Nina Guerrera and her newly compiled FBI specialty team—made up of her, a criminal profiler, a computer wiz, and a former Navy SEAL— are investigating a double homicide/suicide case. The case escalates when possible ties to other double homicide/suicides across the country spanning decades are discovered and they realize they may have a bunch of triple murders on their hands!
Profiler Jeffrey Wade enlightens us on the mind of the suspected killer— a narcissist who also has Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)- “A black hole is an accurate description of an untreated psychopathic narcissist.” And now they must track down this murderous black hole in the desert of Phoenix, Arizona before more people die or he hides away undetected for another 4 years.
The urgency increases as they begin unraveling threads, putting Agent Guerrera firmly in the killer’s sights, forcing her to come to terms with part of her past she never knew she needed to.
It lives up to the same intense and suspenseful storyline as the first one and I really enjoyed it. This is shaping up to be a great series! The characters were, again, distinct and developed. Nina is the focus but we see her relationship with Wade and Kent progress in this one. And am I the only one that thinks Bianca is going to be officially joining the team in the not so distant future?? I think that would be a great addition in characters and plot possibilities. (Although, I’d prefer she stop using the f-word if Maldonado is going to bulk up Bianca’s lines in the next book.)
There were some points in the book that I felt there to be a bit of hand-holding in defining terms. For example, they made it seem like a killer’s ‘signature’ was some new term law enforcement officers had never heard of before. Or when the Spanish phrase ‘Dónde están mis hijos?’ was used Kent translated it “That means, ‘where are my children” and then the book says “Nina recalled that he spoke four languages.” And the collective reader audience goes: “Uh, yeah. We only speak one and a half languages and we all know what that means. Pipe down Kent, we didn’t need you for this.” (Okay… it was either children or Cheetos but I think we would have figured it out)
For the learners out there, here are three interesting things I learned while reading (besides the characteristics of narcissism that I’m trying to stop pinning on everyone I know…just jokes…. It’s only a couple people...)—
- Revenge filicide= Filicide is the technical term for the murder of one’s own offspring so revenge filicide is killing your child to get back at someone else. I’m glad I didn’t know this term before because if this was well-known, we would live in a very sad society indeed.
- “People with ASPD only make up about one to three percent of the overall population, but they constitute anywhere from forty to seventy percent of those in prison.”
I found this statistic a bit shocking! Especially because after reading Just Mercy you kinda start feeling like we need to get everyone out of prison. I did a little googling on this stat and I did find a study that indicated ASPD rates in prison to be anywhere between 50-80% depending on the study (and probably method of diagnosing). This particular study was researching violent acts done in prison by newly imprisoned people with ASPD and actually found that number to be fairly low calling into question the legal push for capital punishment for violent offenders with ASPD. I don’t know if I’m convinced and this leads me to more questions than I can find answers for and really has nothing to do with this story, but ANYWAY, it’s fascinating stuff, yeah?
- Nuyorican—/n(y)o͞oˈyôrēkən/)= a Puerto Rican living in the US, especially in New York City
So, in summation, if you haven’t read The Cipher, head over there first and read this series from the beginning. If you’ve already read book one, then continue forth, fellow reader— I believe you will be glad you did!
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
“There was no such thing as a perfect English gentleman.”
Set in England post WWI, this series follows Inspector Ian Rutledge, inspector in the Scotland Yard, as he investigates and solves cases.
What sets Rutledge apart is that his PTSD (or shell shock) from WWI exhibits itself in the form of Hamish, a fellow comrade deceased in the war, who now haunts Rutledge as a second conscience he hears in his head. This book explains why this is.
I read the second book in this series about 4 years ago and am finally getting around to reading more in the series. I would recommend starting at the beginning. Even just starting in book two I was really confused about this Hamish character and it turned me off a bit. It’s still not my favorite aspect of this book but if you want to read this series you will have to get used to it.
I would compare this book to Charles Finch’s Charles Lennox series, Magpie Murders, or Anne Perry’s mysteries. It’s an old-timey historical fiction type of mystery with old English vernacular and the classic clue-hunting type of investigation.
In A Test of Wills we find Rutledge being sent to a village in England where a prominent war hero has been found murdered and the primary suspect is also a war hero— decorated and friend to the Crown. His nemesis, at the Yard, who has learned about Hamish, has assigned him the case hoping it will prove to be too much for him mentally and politically. No one wants to arrest a friend of the Prince of Wales!
It is a lose/lose situation for Rutledge.
He must gather his wits about him and find the intuition he once had before the war and figure out who in the village is lying and who the real murderer is.
We are presented with several suspects with varying motives and opportunities. Early on, when one of the townspeople is introduced I pinned them correctly as being the key witness, but there were enough red herrings that I went back and forth in my head and ultimately didn’t have it figured out exactly as it ended up being. It kind of came out of left field and I had to reread the last few pages twice to understand what I missed!
One thing I wish they would have included for this book was a sketch at the beginning mapping out the town for us. Much of Rutledge’s investigation deals with the layout of the town and the route the victim and murderer would have taken. They try to explain the different paths and house positionings but I think it would have been easier to just throw in a map at the beginning like many books do to help the readers visualize what is being described.
I also wanted to mention that I appreciated the lack of swearing in this book and that they were creative in their use of it without printing it. For example: “He called them all every unprintable name he could think of…” It still gets the point across and describes his demeanor without making readers read crass language. I wish more authors got creative with this when they insist on including swearing in their books. So thank you, Charles Todd, for your creativity.
This series solves a mystery in each book, but we also have this psychological thread following Rutledge’s inner turmoil— figuring out how to endure and overcome his shell shock:
“He’d learned, in France, to face dying. He could learn, in time, how to face living.”
If you like a good mystery, I would recommend this book! Plus I have it on good authority (aka my mom) that the whole series is good!
**Bonus new word I learned: pugilist= boxer
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
Set in England post WWI, this series follows Inspector Ian Rutledge, inspector in the Scotland Yard, as he investigates and solves cases.
What sets Rutledge apart is that his PTSD (or shell shock) from WWI exhibits itself in the form of Hamish, a fellow comrade deceased in the war, who now haunts Rutledge as a second conscience he hears in his head. This book explains why this is.
I read the second book in this series about 4 years ago and am finally getting around to reading more in the series. I would recommend starting at the beginning. Even just starting in book two I was really confused about this Hamish character and it turned me off a bit. It’s still not my favorite aspect of this book but if you want to read this series you will have to get used to it.
I would compare this book to Charles Finch’s Charles Lennox series, Magpie Murders, or Anne Perry’s mysteries. It’s an old-timey historical fiction type of mystery with old English vernacular and the classic clue-hunting type of investigation.
In A Test of Wills we find Rutledge being sent to a village in England where a prominent war hero has been found murdered and the primary suspect is also a war hero— decorated and friend to the Crown. His nemesis, at the Yard, who has learned about Hamish, has assigned him the case hoping it will prove to be too much for him mentally and politically. No one wants to arrest a friend of the Prince of Wales!
It is a lose/lose situation for Rutledge.
He must gather his wits about him and find the intuition he once had before the war and figure out who in the village is lying and who the real murderer is.
We are presented with several suspects with varying motives and opportunities. Early on, when one of the townspeople is introduced I pinned them correctly as being the key witness, but there were enough red herrings that I went back and forth in my head and ultimately didn’t have it figured out exactly as it ended up being. It kind of came out of left field and I had to reread the last few pages twice to understand what I missed!
One thing I wish they would have included for this book was a sketch at the beginning mapping out the town for us. Much of Rutledge’s investigation deals with the layout of the town and the route the victim and murderer would have taken. They try to explain the different paths and house positionings but I think it would have been easier to just throw in a map at the beginning like many books do to help the readers visualize what is being described.
I also wanted to mention that I appreciated the lack of swearing in this book and that they were creative in their use of it without printing it. For example: “He called them all every unprintable name he could think of…” It still gets the point across and describes his demeanor without making readers read crass language. I wish more authors got creative with this when they insist on including swearing in their books. So thank you, Charles Todd, for your creativity.
This series solves a mystery in each book, but we also have this psychological thread following Rutledge’s inner turmoil— figuring out how to endure and overcome his shell shock:
“He’d learned, in France, to face dying. He could learn, in time, how to face living.”
If you like a good mystery, I would recommend this book! Plus I have it on good authority (aka my mom) that the whole series is good!
**Bonus new word I learned: pugilist= boxer
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
“If the human mind is set up as the measure and test of truth, it will quickly substitute for man’s incomprehensible Creator a comprehensible idol fashioned in man’s own image…”
J.I. Packer, most widely known for his book Knowing God, also wrote this excellent book (back in 1958).
I found this book to be compelling, intelligent, and transparent.
Before you let the word ‘Fundamentalism’ scare you away, give this book a chance. Packer lays out several reasons for why the term "‘fundamentalism’ (note the quotes in the title), which traces roots back to 1909, is no longer a helpful term and should not be used. It comes with a lot of historical and theological baggage that takes away from any serious discussion about the actual beliefs held by adherents.
“the word is prejudicial, ambiguous, explosive and in every way unhelpful to discussion. It does not clarify; it merely confuses. It is only in use today because critics of Evangelicalism have dragged it up.”
While we should commend original fundamentalists for their zeal in defending their beliefs at a time when “militant Liberalism” was threatening to the faith, we must move forward and away from this term, recognizing the original movement’s weaknesses: “anti-intellectual bias, distrust of scholarship, de-valuing of reason in matters of religion, and susceptibility to eccentric influences.”
Later in the book he explains why authentic Christian faith requires us to use our minds, to reason, and to study. Worth quoting at length:
“The Evangelical is not afraid of facts, for he knows that all facts are God’s facts; nor is he afraid of thinking, for he knows that all truth is God’s truth, and right reason cannot endanger sound faith. He is called to love God with all his mind’ and part of what this means is that, when confronted by those who, on professedly rational grounds, take exception to historic Christianity, he must set himself not merely to deplore or denounce them but to out-think them. It is not his business to argue men into faith, for that cannot be done; but it is his business to demonstrate the intellectual adequacy of the biblical faith and the comparative inadequacy of its rivals, and to show the invalidity of the criticisms that are brought against it. This he seeks to do, not from any motive of intellectual self-justification, but for the glory of God and of His gospel. A confident intellectualism expressive of robust faith in God, whose Word is truth, is part of the historic evangelical tradition.”
Packer actually suggests ‘Evangelical’ is a better term, but we can see how this term hasn’t aged well either. Since 1958 ‘Evangelical’ has accumulated just as much baggage as fundamentalism with associations to legalism and especially and unfortunately, with far-right politics that seem inseparable in probably most Americans’ minds. I am not sure what a better term for us would be at this point.
Fundamentalism is identified by five major beliefs:
1. Infallibility/inerrancy of Scripture
2. Diety of Christ
3. Virgin birth (and other miracles)
4. Christ’s death atoning for our sins
5. Jesus’ bodily resurrection
“Fundamentalism” and the Word of God focuses on the first tenet— the infallibility of Scripture— because beginning with a foundational belief that the Bible is our ultimate, trustworthy authority is essential for any further doctrinal discussion.
“The deepest cleavages in Christendom are doctrinal; and the deepest doctrinal cleavages are those which result from disagreement about authority. Radical divergences are only to be expected when there is no agreement as to the proper grounds for believing anything… Those who disagree as to the principle of authority and, in consequence, as to the right method in theology, can reach no significant agreement on anything else.”
Before going further, a note about the writing style/formatting of this book. It is an old book and it is one that is a bit hard to read. I’m not sure if it’s been reprinted but the copy I have is small font, huge paragraphs, biblical references are in Roman numeral format, plus Packer just has a huge vocabulary so you might have to look up some words. It makes for a read that requires a quiet environment and a lot of concentration.
To be clear: it is definitely is worth your time. There were parts I didn’t fully grasp but there is still plenty that is easily understood. To the writing style— this book is presented as an argument. He is writing to present his side of the fundamentalism debate. He is writing to persuade Christians to hold fast to the authority of Scripture.
Therefore, much of his writing is strongly worded, which, personally, I find refreshing. There is no mincing words with Packer. He puts it to you straight. I mean, don’t you just love a theologian who uses the word ‘bumptious’?? (just look it up… you know you want to.)
He describes 3 authorities we can appeal to:
- Scripture (Evangelical view- the Bible is God’s words and interprets itself)
- Church (Traditionalist view- what the Church says, God says and Church tradition reveals truth)
- Reason/Conscience (Subjectivist view- what I feel God says, God says- I examine the Bible with an open mind and measure it against my own reason and what I find in extra-biblical sources)
Packer urges us to maintain the same view of Scripture as Jesus:
“Jesus Christ endorsed [Scripture] with the greatest emphasis and the full weight of His authority.” (Jn 7:16, 12:49, 7:48. Mark 1:22, Matt 5:17-18, Jn 10:35)
“Christ’s claim to be divine is either true or false. If it is true, His Person guarantees the truth of all the rest of His teaching; therefore, His view of the Old Testament is true. If His claim is false, there is no compelling reason to believe anything else that He said… If we refuse to believe some part of what He taught, we are in effect denying Him to be the divine Messiah—on our own authority.”
Packer confirms that when we believe in the ‘inspired’ Word of God we do not believe God literally dictated every word of Scripture but that every word we have in the Bible is exactly as God intended it. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Creator and Sustainer of the world would have the power and sovereignty to inspire the Bible as He would have it.
“Inspiration is to be defined as a supernatural, providential influence of God’s Holy Spirit upon the human authors which caused them to write what He wished to be written for the communication of revealed truth to others.”
“The Lord was well able to prepare, equip and overrule sinful human writers so that they wrote nothing but what He intended; and Scripture tells us that this is what in fact he did. We are to think of the Spirit’s inspiring activity, and, for that matter, of all His regular operations in and upon human personality as concursive; that is as exercised in, through and by means of the writers’ own activity, in such a way that their thinking and writing was both free and spontaneous on their part and divinely elicited and controlled, and what they wrote was not only their own work but also God’s work.” (Ps 135:6)
“The infallibility and inerrancy of biblical teaching does not, however, guarantee the infallibility and inerrancy of any interpretation, or interpreter, of that teaching…”
He reminds us that we cannot believe the Bible outside of the work of the Holy Spirit:
“Having disclosed himself objectively in history, in His incarnate Son, and in His written, scriptural Word, God now enlightens men subjectively in experience, so that they apprehend His self-disclosure for what it is. Thus, He causes them to know Him, and His end in revelation is achieved.”
“The evangelical certainty of the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture is of exactly the same sort, and rests on exactly the same basis, as the Church’s certainty of the Trinity, or the incarnation, or any other catholic doctrine. God has declared it; Scripture embodies it; the Spirit exhibits it to believers; and they humbly receive it, as they are bound to do.”
I find his reference to the Fall enlightening as we determine where our authority is going to be— within ourselves and our own ability to make judgements or in the Creator.
“It was precisely because man welcomed the prospect of becoming the measure and judge of all things that sin first entered the world. ‘When you eat… you will not need to depend any more on what God chooses to tell you; you will be able to work out for yourselves what is good and bad, and be master of your own judgment, not the basis of your own experience; you will have a mind of your own for the first time’... Man sought intellectual self-sufficiency, ability to solve life’s problems without reference to the word of God… they are still apt to demand instead that their reason be permitted to make its own independent assessment of what He says and to have the last word deciding whether it is credible or not.”
We are constantly battling our flesh, wanting control, wanting to be our own god and make the rules. We are regularly fighting our urge to demand the things our own way because we believe we know better than anyone else. This is the original sin— the usurping of God’s authority and design. He has given us His Word that has asserted itself as “a God-given, error-free, self-interpreting unity, true and trustworthy in all that it teaches.” Judging it as anything else or assigning credibility factors to different parts is unbelief and rebellion, however well-intentioned.
Who or what is your final authority? Really think about that. Who or what do you bow to? Whatever your church leaders say? Tradition? Professors? Popular opinion? Whatever feels right? Your own knowledge and judgement?
Or the very words of God?
It is essential to all matters of faith to get this right or your basis for all your other beliefs is on shaky ground.
I think I copied down 80% of the end of the book because it was so good. Packer definitely knows how to stir his audience to love God and His Word. Here are some favorites, and, as before, it’s worth quoting in length:
“The honest way to commend God’s revealed truth to an unbelieving generation is not to disguise it as a word of man, and to act as if we could never be sure of it, but had to keep censoring and amending it at the behest of the latest scholarship, and dared not believe it further than historical agnosticism gives us leave; but to preach it in a way which shows the world that we believe it whole-heartedly, and to cry to God to accompany our witness with his Spirit, so that we too may preach “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” (1 Cor 2:4-5)
“We have to choose whether to bow to the authority claimed by the Son of God, or whether on our own authority to discount and contravene a part of His teaching; whether to rest content with Christianity according to Christ, or whether to go hankering after a Christianity according to the spirit of our age; whether to behave as Christ’s disciples, or as His tutors…
We have to choose whether to embrace the delusion that human creatures are competent to judge and find fault with the words of their Creator, or whether to recognize this idea for the blasphemy that it is and drop it. We have to decide whether to say that we believe the Bible and mean it, or to look for ways whereby we can say it without having to accept all the consequences...
We have to choose whether, in presenting Christianity to others, we are going to rely on the demonstration of the Spirit to commend it, or on our own ability to make it masquerade as the fulfillment of secular thought.”
“Let us not fear the opposition of men: every great movement in the Church from Paul down to modern times has been criticized on the ground that it promoted censoriousness and intolerance and disputing. Of course the gospel of Christ, in a world of sin and doubt, will cause disputing; and if it does not cause disputing and arouse bitter opposition, that is a fairly sure sign that it is not being faithfully proclaimed… it is becoming increasingly necessary for a man to choose whether he will stand with Christ or against Him… It is out of such times of questioning that great revivals come… Controversy of the right sort is good; for out of such controversy, as Church history and Scripture alike teach, there comes the salvation of souls.” — Machen
Further reading:
Taking God at His Word by Kevin DeYoung is a more recent and easy to understand book on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture— why we can and should trust it.
Surviving Religion 101 by Michael J. Kruger is about more than just the authority of Scripture but this was written by a scholar of the New Testament canon and has a few chapters discussing why we can trust the Bible as we have it.
Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen would be another good book— Packer quotes Machen a lot in his book. I haven’t read this one but it comes highly recommended.
Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism by George M. Marsden is another one I haven’t read but has come recommended.
(Note: These last two books are also older and may be harder reads)
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
J.I. Packer, most widely known for his book Knowing God, also wrote this excellent book (back in 1958).
I found this book to be compelling, intelligent, and transparent.
Before you let the word ‘Fundamentalism’ scare you away, give this book a chance. Packer lays out several reasons for why the term "‘fundamentalism’ (note the quotes in the title), which traces roots back to 1909, is no longer a helpful term and should not be used. It comes with a lot of historical and theological baggage that takes away from any serious discussion about the actual beliefs held by adherents.
“the word is prejudicial, ambiguous, explosive and in every way unhelpful to discussion. It does not clarify; it merely confuses. It is only in use today because critics of Evangelicalism have dragged it up.”
While we should commend original fundamentalists for their zeal in defending their beliefs at a time when “militant Liberalism” was threatening to the faith, we must move forward and away from this term, recognizing the original movement’s weaknesses: “anti-intellectual bias, distrust of scholarship, de-valuing of reason in matters of religion, and susceptibility to eccentric influences.”
Later in the book he explains why authentic Christian faith requires us to use our minds, to reason, and to study. Worth quoting at length:
“The Evangelical is not afraid of facts, for he knows that all facts are God’s facts; nor is he afraid of thinking, for he knows that all truth is God’s truth, and right reason cannot endanger sound faith. He is called to love God with all his mind’ and part of what this means is that, when confronted by those who, on professedly rational grounds, take exception to historic Christianity, he must set himself not merely to deplore or denounce them but to out-think them. It is not his business to argue men into faith, for that cannot be done; but it is his business to demonstrate the intellectual adequacy of the biblical faith and the comparative inadequacy of its rivals, and to show the invalidity of the criticisms that are brought against it. This he seeks to do, not from any motive of intellectual self-justification, but for the glory of God and of His gospel. A confident intellectualism expressive of robust faith in God, whose Word is truth, is part of the historic evangelical tradition.”
Packer actually suggests ‘Evangelical’ is a better term, but we can see how this term hasn’t aged well either. Since 1958 ‘Evangelical’ has accumulated just as much baggage as fundamentalism with associations to legalism and especially and unfortunately, with far-right politics that seem inseparable in probably most Americans’ minds. I am not sure what a better term for us would be at this point.
Fundamentalism is identified by five major beliefs:
1. Infallibility/inerrancy of Scripture
2. Diety of Christ
3. Virgin birth (and other miracles)
4. Christ’s death atoning for our sins
5. Jesus’ bodily resurrection
“Fundamentalism” and the Word of God focuses on the first tenet— the infallibility of Scripture— because beginning with a foundational belief that the Bible is our ultimate, trustworthy authority is essential for any further doctrinal discussion.
“The deepest cleavages in Christendom are doctrinal; and the deepest doctrinal cleavages are those which result from disagreement about authority. Radical divergences are only to be expected when there is no agreement as to the proper grounds for believing anything… Those who disagree as to the principle of authority and, in consequence, as to the right method in theology, can reach no significant agreement on anything else.”
Before going further, a note about the writing style/formatting of this book. It is an old book and it is one that is a bit hard to read. I’m not sure if it’s been reprinted but the copy I have is small font, huge paragraphs, biblical references are in Roman numeral format, plus Packer just has a huge vocabulary so you might have to look up some words. It makes for a read that requires a quiet environment and a lot of concentration.
To be clear: it is definitely is worth your time. There were parts I didn’t fully grasp but there is still plenty that is easily understood. To the writing style— this book is presented as an argument. He is writing to present his side of the fundamentalism debate. He is writing to persuade Christians to hold fast to the authority of Scripture.
Therefore, much of his writing is strongly worded, which, personally, I find refreshing. There is no mincing words with Packer. He puts it to you straight. I mean, don’t you just love a theologian who uses the word ‘bumptious’?? (just look it up… you know you want to.)
He describes 3 authorities we can appeal to:
- Scripture (Evangelical view- the Bible is God’s words and interprets itself)
- Church (Traditionalist view- what the Church says, God says and Church tradition reveals truth)
- Reason/Conscience (Subjectivist view- what I feel God says, God says- I examine the Bible with an open mind and measure it against my own reason and what I find in extra-biblical sources)
Packer urges us to maintain the same view of Scripture as Jesus:
“Jesus Christ endorsed [Scripture] with the greatest emphasis and the full weight of His authority.” (Jn 7:16, 12:49, 7:48. Mark 1:22, Matt 5:17-18, Jn 10:35)
“Christ’s claim to be divine is either true or false. If it is true, His Person guarantees the truth of all the rest of His teaching; therefore, His view of the Old Testament is true. If His claim is false, there is no compelling reason to believe anything else that He said… If we refuse to believe some part of what He taught, we are in effect denying Him to be the divine Messiah—on our own authority.”
Packer confirms that when we believe in the ‘inspired’ Word of God we do not believe God literally dictated every word of Scripture but that every word we have in the Bible is exactly as God intended it. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Creator and Sustainer of the world would have the power and sovereignty to inspire the Bible as He would have it.
“Inspiration is to be defined as a supernatural, providential influence of God’s Holy Spirit upon the human authors which caused them to write what He wished to be written for the communication of revealed truth to others.”
“The Lord was well able to prepare, equip and overrule sinful human writers so that they wrote nothing but what He intended; and Scripture tells us that this is what in fact he did. We are to think of the Spirit’s inspiring activity, and, for that matter, of all His regular operations in and upon human personality as concursive; that is as exercised in, through and by means of the writers’ own activity, in such a way that their thinking and writing was both free and spontaneous on their part and divinely elicited and controlled, and what they wrote was not only their own work but also God’s work.” (Ps 135:6)
“The infallibility and inerrancy of biblical teaching does not, however, guarantee the infallibility and inerrancy of any interpretation, or interpreter, of that teaching…”
He reminds us that we cannot believe the Bible outside of the work of the Holy Spirit:
“Having disclosed himself objectively in history, in His incarnate Son, and in His written, scriptural Word, God now enlightens men subjectively in experience, so that they apprehend His self-disclosure for what it is. Thus, He causes them to know Him, and His end in revelation is achieved.”
“The evangelical certainty of the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture is of exactly the same sort, and rests on exactly the same basis, as the Church’s certainty of the Trinity, or the incarnation, or any other catholic doctrine. God has declared it; Scripture embodies it; the Spirit exhibits it to believers; and they humbly receive it, as they are bound to do.”
I find his reference to the Fall enlightening as we determine where our authority is going to be— within ourselves and our own ability to make judgements or in the Creator.
“It was precisely because man welcomed the prospect of becoming the measure and judge of all things that sin first entered the world. ‘When you eat… you will not need to depend any more on what God chooses to tell you; you will be able to work out for yourselves what is good and bad, and be master of your own judgment, not the basis of your own experience; you will have a mind of your own for the first time’... Man sought intellectual self-sufficiency, ability to solve life’s problems without reference to the word of God… they are still apt to demand instead that their reason be permitted to make its own independent assessment of what He says and to have the last word deciding whether it is credible or not.”
We are constantly battling our flesh, wanting control, wanting to be our own god and make the rules. We are regularly fighting our urge to demand the things our own way because we believe we know better than anyone else. This is the original sin— the usurping of God’s authority and design. He has given us His Word that has asserted itself as “a God-given, error-free, self-interpreting unity, true and trustworthy in all that it teaches.” Judging it as anything else or assigning credibility factors to different parts is unbelief and rebellion, however well-intentioned.
Who or what is your final authority? Really think about that. Who or what do you bow to? Whatever your church leaders say? Tradition? Professors? Popular opinion? Whatever feels right? Your own knowledge and judgement?
Or the very words of God?
It is essential to all matters of faith to get this right or your basis for all your other beliefs is on shaky ground.
I think I copied down 80% of the end of the book because it was so good. Packer definitely knows how to stir his audience to love God and His Word. Here are some favorites, and, as before, it’s worth quoting in length:
“The honest way to commend God’s revealed truth to an unbelieving generation is not to disguise it as a word of man, and to act as if we could never be sure of it, but had to keep censoring and amending it at the behest of the latest scholarship, and dared not believe it further than historical agnosticism gives us leave; but to preach it in a way which shows the world that we believe it whole-heartedly, and to cry to God to accompany our witness with his Spirit, so that we too may preach “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” (1 Cor 2:4-5)
“We have to choose whether to bow to the authority claimed by the Son of God, or whether on our own authority to discount and contravene a part of His teaching; whether to rest content with Christianity according to Christ, or whether to go hankering after a Christianity according to the spirit of our age; whether to behave as Christ’s disciples, or as His tutors…
We have to choose whether to embrace the delusion that human creatures are competent to judge and find fault with the words of their Creator, or whether to recognize this idea for the blasphemy that it is and drop it. We have to decide whether to say that we believe the Bible and mean it, or to look for ways whereby we can say it without having to accept all the consequences...
We have to choose whether, in presenting Christianity to others, we are going to rely on the demonstration of the Spirit to commend it, or on our own ability to make it masquerade as the fulfillment of secular thought.”
“Let us not fear the opposition of men: every great movement in the Church from Paul down to modern times has been criticized on the ground that it promoted censoriousness and intolerance and disputing. Of course the gospel of Christ, in a world of sin and doubt, will cause disputing; and if it does not cause disputing and arouse bitter opposition, that is a fairly sure sign that it is not being faithfully proclaimed… it is becoming increasingly necessary for a man to choose whether he will stand with Christ or against Him… It is out of such times of questioning that great revivals come… Controversy of the right sort is good; for out of such controversy, as Church history and Scripture alike teach, there comes the salvation of souls.” — Machen
Further reading:
Taking God at His Word by Kevin DeYoung is a more recent and easy to understand book on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture— why we can and should trust it.
Surviving Religion 101 by Michael J. Kruger is about more than just the authority of Scripture but this was written by a scholar of the New Testament canon and has a few chapters discussing why we can trust the Bible as we have it.
Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen would be another good book— Packer quotes Machen a lot in his book. I haven’t read this one but it comes highly recommended.
Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism by George M. Marsden is another one I haven’t read but has come recommended.
(Note: These last two books are also older and may be harder reads)
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”—Mark 8:38
People are getting cancelled left and right. Christians don’t corner the market on being cancelled. People who were considered liberals 10 years ago are apparently no longer liberal enough and the hammer comes down. People of all professions are finding themselves having to make difficult decisions in the workplace, fearing termination for failure to exhibit ‘company values’ that were not previously expected.
[I’ve read many really good, relevant books about engaging with a culture who disagrees with our views and about the more specific topics— they are linked at the end of this review.]
In this book, Joe Dallas (former member of the gay community) has zeroed in on the impact and hostility cancel culture is having specifically on and toward the Christian community. The main cultural values at odds with our beliefs as Bible-believing Christians revolve around gender, marriage, abortion, Critical Race Theory, and ‘exclusive’ theological positions.
His heart for this book is to bolster Christians to stand firm in truth and conviction while showing compassion in our relationships. To encourage us to accept the cultural costs of declaring “the whole counsel of God”. (Acts 20:27) To offer some helpful statements or questions to use when talking about these topics with friends and family who may be pulling away from us as they find out our differing views. To caution us from becoming ‘ravers’ who resort to insults and sarcasm, loudmouths set on ‘winning’ an argument rather than listening and caring about the people who hold different viewpoints.
Or as he puts it: “equipping believers to provide reasonable answers and have effective dialogue with family members, close friends, and associates who take issue with their belief system.”
Dallas devotes a chapter each to the topics of abortion, homosexuality, race, transgenderism, and progressive Christianity. But before he gets into all of that he spends time highlighting what is happening with cancel culture right now. Using the definition of cancel culture found in the Cambridge dictionary he points out that cancel culture often goes beyond merely “to reject or stop supporting someone who says or does something to offend you."
“Too often cancelled really means silenced, forcibly shut down, or completely cut off by a friend or loved one.”
It’s worth noting (and many of the linked books I provide discuss this as well) that definitions have been changing. Tolerant doesn’t mean what it used to. We can no longer agree to disagree and have a civil discourse to consider other viewpoints. Over the years culture has progressed from holding many of the same beliefs as Christians today, to asking us to explain our beliefs, to asking us to defend our beliefs, and now we are forced not just to defend our beliefs but to defend our right to even teach or practice them.
The Coddling of the American Mind explores how institutions of higher learning are pro-diversity except when it comes to viewpoints that oppose the mainstream cultural agenda. To voice a differing viewpoint is now considered to be creating an unsafe space for people psychologically. And threatening psychological comfort is now considered and act of violence.
To exacerbate the shift in definitions that rounds out how morality is defined, we add in identity groups and the demonizing (or as Dallas has coined “starring”) of certain groups, we’re getting into dangerous territory: loss of rights and the ability to voice any dissenting opinion.
The implications of cancel culture are deep and far-reaching. We must figure out how to engage with people and maintain our relationships while still disagreeing with their view if it contradicts the truths of the Bible.
I won’t detail his points within each of the “issue-chapters” (for lack of a better phrase) but I will say that I found them to be Scripturally sound and in line with the beliefs of the other books I linked.
The writing style of this book is very informal which is good and bad. It’s very easy to understand and follow, but at times his word choice may not be the most tactful and is sometimes a bit cheeky. I think this may turn some people off.
For example, he says, “But when everyone’s behaving fairly (read “like adults”),” and uses the words ‘childish’ and ‘tantrum’ a few times. While these may ring true in many interactions, especially online, it’s an unfair broad stroke to make that could alienate readers. It belittles the context of many situations.
He also says, “we’re not the ones going on social media trying to silence people, or on Amazon trying to ban books, or on college campuses shouting down speakers we disagree with.” Again, in a lot of ways this is right, but worded like this it paints Christians as saints when I think a lot of readers will have had experiences with nominal Christians who actually do try to forcibly silence people or try to cancel people from the other side. Even though we believe we have the side the truth, we must sadly recognize that there are people wielding it inappropriately. Worded this way, it also emphasizes the ‘us vs them’ mentality that I believe is harmful to effective dialogue. We should not be behaving and treating people how we are asking not to be treated.
I don’t believe his intent is to belittle or divide, there is much he says in his book that is compassionate and a striving for unity. I found most of his book very helpful and truthful. I just think you have to look past some of his phrasings and not let it taint the truth and intent of what he is saying.
It is conspicuous and reputationally dangerous to take a countercultural stand right now. ‘Being nice’ is the golden rule, but just being nice, though it sounds like ‘the right side’ is not going to fix any of the real problems we have in the world. We need more than niceness. We need truths that bring life. Let this book be an encouragement to you to:
“be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us (1 Peter 3:15), speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), be unashamed of our Master’s words (Luke 9:26), act as ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), and contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).”
“say no to yielding and yes to the outcome, be it personal heartache, social rejection, professional hardship, or criminal status. We’re all in, and we’ll stay all in so long as we value eternal truth over temporal convenience.”
One thing is made evident as you read this book. If we are truth-tellers, we need to be discerning of truth. How do we do that?
If the Bible is our authority for truth and the definer of morality, we need to know our Bible first and foremost. Secondly, we need to be readers. We cannot let social media, the news, or that one book everyone is reading be our only source of information. Discerning truth cannot be done in the vacuum of Facebook comment wars, retweets, CNN, or Babylon Bee articles.
Take ownership of your beliefs and be a learner.
Read the Bible.
Read more books (did I mention I linked books and reviews below???)
Be able to defend your beliefs. Not in rage but in conviction to truth. Just because you don’t know why you believe what you believe or your beliefs are unpopular does not mean they are not true.
Truth is not subject to the whims of flighty feelings and popularity contests.
Truth is there. Go find it.
Who knows how things will change in the years to come? Who knows what rights we will have? There are many unknowns. We can’t miss our opportunities to speak.
Our urgency is not driven by fear. It is driven by confident hope.
The truth cannot be cancelled.
“Our hope continues to be built on nothing less, because as long as the people of God are ready to speak the Word of God, and as long as the Spirit of God is ready to confirm the Word of God, then the people of God need never fear that the Word of God will be silenced. Some of us may be. But it, and He, will not.”
His Word is eternal, unfailing, and not subject to any man or government.
Amen.
Some quotes:
“When the voices surrounding you say you’re wrong, you might be tempted to reconsider your beliefs, especially if you never really examined and became grounded in them in the first place. That’s when you might think, Well, how can so many people be wrong? Maybe there’s something to what they say. That’s exactly why I think a number of not-too-well-grounded Christians have waffled on key issues.”
“To cave is not just to get along. It’s to value getting along above all else, even at the expense of honesty, integrity, or higher loyalties. Caving happens when a need for approval or an aversion to conflict or a fear of consequence overrides convictions.”
“Major social media platforms have decided they know what’s true, what’s moral, and what’s bigoted. Based on that knowledge, they define truth, morality, and bigotry, and thereby decide who should be allowed to speak, who should be silenced, who should be scrutinized whenever they post, and whose content and messaging should be given an unexamined green light.”
“To trust in the living God is to obey Him, since faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Obeying Him means fulfilling His commission to preach the gospel and make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15). To make disciples is to teach them so they in turn will teach others (2 Timothy 2:2), and to teach is to give the full counsel of God from the Word of God in its entirety (Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 3:16). That will include teaching what the Word says about sex, marriage, preborn life, prejudice, salvation, and judgment.”
“What is the primary reason the world hated Jesus? His words. What He said infuriated all the wrong people, who conspired to kill Him because they knew words have influence, and the influence of His words on the people would disrupt their agenda and control.”
“each political party has true believers. So does each social cause, and each faith counts them among its members. When true believers and truth go together, it’s a thing of beauty. But true believers anchored to something other than truth can be wrong, misguided, even scary.”
“Jesus didn’t shy away from declaring a truth just because someone else had declared it the wrong way. On the contrary, He took His positions all the more plainly, with love, authority, and clarity. He knew they were vital; He knew they were relevant. Even if they had been presented poorly in the past.”
Relevant (and really good) books:
[Visit www.shelfreflection.com for my full reviews of these books- too many to link here]
Today’s Culture:
- The Intolerance of Tolerance by D.A. Carson
- Fortitude: American Resilience in the Age of Outrage by Dan Crenshaw
- The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff
- The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to the Sexual Revolution by Carl Trueman
- Live Not By Lies by Rod Dreher
Gender and Marriage:
- What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung
- Gay Girl, Good God by Jackie Hill Perry
- What God Has to Say about Our Bodies: How the Gospel Is Good News for Our Physical Bodies by Sam Allberry
- Born Again This Way by Rachel Gilson (on my to-read)
- Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters by Abigail Shrier
The Church and Politics and Social Justice:
- Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth: 12 Questions Christians Should Ask about Social Justice by Thaddeus J. Williams
- What is the Mission of the Church: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission by Kevin DeYoung
- How the Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age by Jonathan Leeman
- Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage by Gavin Ortlund
- Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just by Timothy Keller
- Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian by John Piper
Talking points in terms of Progressive Christianity:
- The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims by Rebecca McLaughlin
- Before You Lose Your Faith: Deconstructing Doubt in the Church by Ivan Mesa (on my to-read)
- Surviving Religion 101: Letters to a Christian Student on Keeping the Faith in College by Michael J. Kruger
- Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion by Rebecca McLaughlin
- Word-Centered Church: How Scripture Brings Life and Growth to God’s People by Jonathan Leeman
- The Unsaved Christian: Reaching Cultural Christianity with the Gospel by Dean Inserra
- Fundamentalism and the Word of God by J.I. Packer (on my to-read)
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
People are getting cancelled left and right. Christians don’t corner the market on being cancelled. People who were considered liberals 10 years ago are apparently no longer liberal enough and the hammer comes down. People of all professions are finding themselves having to make difficult decisions in the workplace, fearing termination for failure to exhibit ‘company values’ that were not previously expected.
[I’ve read many really good, relevant books about engaging with a culture who disagrees with our views and about the more specific topics— they are linked at the end of this review.]
In this book, Joe Dallas (former member of the gay community) has zeroed in on the impact and hostility cancel culture is having specifically on and toward the Christian community. The main cultural values at odds with our beliefs as Bible-believing Christians revolve around gender, marriage, abortion, Critical Race Theory, and ‘exclusive’ theological positions.
His heart for this book is to bolster Christians to stand firm in truth and conviction while showing compassion in our relationships. To encourage us to accept the cultural costs of declaring “the whole counsel of God”. (Acts 20:27) To offer some helpful statements or questions to use when talking about these topics with friends and family who may be pulling away from us as they find out our differing views. To caution us from becoming ‘ravers’ who resort to insults and sarcasm, loudmouths set on ‘winning’ an argument rather than listening and caring about the people who hold different viewpoints.
Or as he puts it: “equipping believers to provide reasonable answers and have effective dialogue with family members, close friends, and associates who take issue with their belief system.”
Dallas devotes a chapter each to the topics of abortion, homosexuality, race, transgenderism, and progressive Christianity. But before he gets into all of that he spends time highlighting what is happening with cancel culture right now. Using the definition of cancel culture found in the Cambridge dictionary he points out that cancel culture often goes beyond merely “to reject or stop supporting someone who says or does something to offend you."
“Too often cancelled really means silenced, forcibly shut down, or completely cut off by a friend or loved one.”
It’s worth noting (and many of the linked books I provide discuss this as well) that definitions have been changing. Tolerant doesn’t mean what it used to. We can no longer agree to disagree and have a civil discourse to consider other viewpoints. Over the years culture has progressed from holding many of the same beliefs as Christians today, to asking us to explain our beliefs, to asking us to defend our beliefs, and now we are forced not just to defend our beliefs but to defend our right to even teach or practice them.
The Coddling of the American Mind explores how institutions of higher learning are pro-diversity except when it comes to viewpoints that oppose the mainstream cultural agenda. To voice a differing viewpoint is now considered to be creating an unsafe space for people psychologically. And threatening psychological comfort is now considered and act of violence.
To exacerbate the shift in definitions that rounds out how morality is defined, we add in identity groups and the demonizing (or as Dallas has coined “starring”) of certain groups, we’re getting into dangerous territory: loss of rights and the ability to voice any dissenting opinion.
The implications of cancel culture are deep and far-reaching. We must figure out how to engage with people and maintain our relationships while still disagreeing with their view if it contradicts the truths of the Bible.
I won’t detail his points within each of the “issue-chapters” (for lack of a better phrase) but I will say that I found them to be Scripturally sound and in line with the beliefs of the other books I linked.
The writing style of this book is very informal which is good and bad. It’s very easy to understand and follow, but at times his word choice may not be the most tactful and is sometimes a bit cheeky. I think this may turn some people off.
For example, he says, “But when everyone’s behaving fairly (read “like adults”),” and uses the words ‘childish’ and ‘tantrum’ a few times. While these may ring true in many interactions, especially online, it’s an unfair broad stroke to make that could alienate readers. It belittles the context of many situations.
He also says, “we’re not the ones going on social media trying to silence people, or on Amazon trying to ban books, or on college campuses shouting down speakers we disagree with.” Again, in a lot of ways this is right, but worded like this it paints Christians as saints when I think a lot of readers will have had experiences with nominal Christians who actually do try to forcibly silence people or try to cancel people from the other side. Even though we believe we have the side the truth, we must sadly recognize that there are people wielding it inappropriately. Worded this way, it also emphasizes the ‘us vs them’ mentality that I believe is harmful to effective dialogue. We should not be behaving and treating people how we are asking not to be treated.
I don’t believe his intent is to belittle or divide, there is much he says in his book that is compassionate and a striving for unity. I found most of his book very helpful and truthful. I just think you have to look past some of his phrasings and not let it taint the truth and intent of what he is saying.
It is conspicuous and reputationally dangerous to take a countercultural stand right now. ‘Being nice’ is the golden rule, but just being nice, though it sounds like ‘the right side’ is not going to fix any of the real problems we have in the world. We need more than niceness. We need truths that bring life. Let this book be an encouragement to you to:
“be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us (1 Peter 3:15), speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), be unashamed of our Master’s words (Luke 9:26), act as ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), and contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).”
“say no to yielding and yes to the outcome, be it personal heartache, social rejection, professional hardship, or criminal status. We’re all in, and we’ll stay all in so long as we value eternal truth over temporal convenience.”
One thing is made evident as you read this book. If we are truth-tellers, we need to be discerning of truth. How do we do that?
If the Bible is our authority for truth and the definer of morality, we need to know our Bible first and foremost. Secondly, we need to be readers. We cannot let social media, the news, or that one book everyone is reading be our only source of information. Discerning truth cannot be done in the vacuum of Facebook comment wars, retweets, CNN, or Babylon Bee articles.
Take ownership of your beliefs and be a learner.
Read the Bible.
Read more books (did I mention I linked books and reviews below???)
Be able to defend your beliefs. Not in rage but in conviction to truth. Just because you don’t know why you believe what you believe or your beliefs are unpopular does not mean they are not true.
Truth is not subject to the whims of flighty feelings and popularity contests.
Truth is there. Go find it.
Who knows how things will change in the years to come? Who knows what rights we will have? There are many unknowns. We can’t miss our opportunities to speak.
Our urgency is not driven by fear. It is driven by confident hope.
The truth cannot be cancelled.
“Our hope continues to be built on nothing less, because as long as the people of God are ready to speak the Word of God, and as long as the Spirit of God is ready to confirm the Word of God, then the people of God need never fear that the Word of God will be silenced. Some of us may be. But it, and He, will not.”
His Word is eternal, unfailing, and not subject to any man or government.
Amen.
Some quotes:
“When the voices surrounding you say you’re wrong, you might be tempted to reconsider your beliefs, especially if you never really examined and became grounded in them in the first place. That’s when you might think, Well, how can so many people be wrong? Maybe there’s something to what they say. That’s exactly why I think a number of not-too-well-grounded Christians have waffled on key issues.”
“To cave is not just to get along. It’s to value getting along above all else, even at the expense of honesty, integrity, or higher loyalties. Caving happens when a need for approval or an aversion to conflict or a fear of consequence overrides convictions.”
“Major social media platforms have decided they know what’s true, what’s moral, and what’s bigoted. Based on that knowledge, they define truth, morality, and bigotry, and thereby decide who should be allowed to speak, who should be silenced, who should be scrutinized whenever they post, and whose content and messaging should be given an unexamined green light.”
“To trust in the living God is to obey Him, since faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Obeying Him means fulfilling His commission to preach the gospel and make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15). To make disciples is to teach them so they in turn will teach others (2 Timothy 2:2), and to teach is to give the full counsel of God from the Word of God in its entirety (Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 3:16). That will include teaching what the Word says about sex, marriage, preborn life, prejudice, salvation, and judgment.”
“What is the primary reason the world hated Jesus? His words. What He said infuriated all the wrong people, who conspired to kill Him because they knew words have influence, and the influence of His words on the people would disrupt their agenda and control.”
“each political party has true believers. So does each social cause, and each faith counts them among its members. When true believers and truth go together, it’s a thing of beauty. But true believers anchored to something other than truth can be wrong, misguided, even scary.”
“Jesus didn’t shy away from declaring a truth just because someone else had declared it the wrong way. On the contrary, He took His positions all the more plainly, with love, authority, and clarity. He knew they were vital; He knew they were relevant. Even if they had been presented poorly in the past.”
Relevant (and really good) books:
[Visit www.shelfreflection.com for my full reviews of these books- too many to link here]
Today’s Culture:
- The Intolerance of Tolerance by D.A. Carson
- Fortitude: American Resilience in the Age of Outrage by Dan Crenshaw
- The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff
- The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to the Sexual Revolution by Carl Trueman
- Live Not By Lies by Rod Dreher
Gender and Marriage:
- What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung
- Gay Girl, Good God by Jackie Hill Perry
- What God Has to Say about Our Bodies: How the Gospel Is Good News for Our Physical Bodies by Sam Allberry
- Born Again This Way by Rachel Gilson (on my to-read)
- Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters by Abigail Shrier
The Church and Politics and Social Justice:
- Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth: 12 Questions Christians Should Ask about Social Justice by Thaddeus J. Williams
- What is the Mission of the Church: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission by Kevin DeYoung
- How the Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age by Jonathan Leeman
- Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage by Gavin Ortlund
- Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just by Timothy Keller
- Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian by John Piper
Talking points in terms of Progressive Christianity:
- The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims by Rebecca McLaughlin
- Before You Lose Your Faith: Deconstructing Doubt in the Church by Ivan Mesa (on my to-read)
- Surviving Religion 101: Letters to a Christian Student on Keeping the Faith in College by Michael J. Kruger
- Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion by Rebecca McLaughlin
- Word-Centered Church: How Scripture Brings Life and Growth to God’s People by Jonathan Leeman
- The Unsaved Christian: Reaching Cultural Christianity with the Gospel by Dean Inserra
- Fundamentalism and the Word of God by J.I. Packer (on my to-read)
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity — And Why This Harms Everybody
James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose
“This book ultimately seeks to present a philosophically liberal critique of Social Justice scholarship and activism and argues that this scholarship-activism does not further social justice and equality aims.”
This book has everything you need to know about Critical Theory. But before you check out because you don’t find this interesting or relevant, I would like to encourage you to still engage in the material.
I don’t know if most people know what critical theory is or if it even matters. Perhaps you only think of critical race theory when you hear critical theory.
The authors of Cynical Theories are not saying that all the facets of critical theory are necessarily widely accepted and promoted. The main point of this book is to trace the history of critical theory and its roots in postmodernism and then expose how these ideologies have formed into various studies (i.e. critical race theory, queer theory, etc) and how they are currently influencing our world, largely unrealized under the guise of social justice.
This book has a ton of information in it so I’m going to do my best to summarize the main points. I’ve also been compiling a glossary of terms (see link below) to help navigate the jargon that goes with critical theory, social justice, and related topics.
I think it’s important to understand critical theory beyond just critical race theory- to understand where many widely accepted beliefs today have been rooted in. Many theories sound good on paper but don’t hold up to scrutiny... like critical theory.
There is a lot to think about with critical theory and if we don’t take ownership of understanding influential ideologies, we might find ourselves misled into a culture that does more harm than good.
The authors argue, and I would agree, that the social justice widely advocated for today, because it is rooted in these postmodern ideas, is not actually accomplishing what they proclaim.
Regardless of your current view of critical theory or critical race theory, please consider the information and think for yourself.
Throughout the whole book, the authors keep coming back to two principles and four themes of (applied) postmodernism influential to the origins of critical theory.
Two Principles of Postmodernism:
1. The knowledge principle: Skepticism about whether objective truth is attainable; ‘truth’ or knowledge is a construct
2. The political principle: Society is formed by systems of power and hierarchies who decide what can be known and how
Four Major Themes of Postmodernism:
1. The blurring of boundaries- pushing against established categories that have widely been accepted as true
- evident in the fluidity and ambiguity of gender/sexuality categories
2. The power of language- belief that language controls society because of how you communicate about things and is inherently dangerous and unreliable
- evident in the use of the words as verbal violence, microaggressions, safe spaces, trigger warnings
3. Cultural relativism- critiquing other cultures is a weapon and oppressive; meaningful critique of any culture can only be done from within lest one culture be viewed superior to another
4. The loss of the individual and the universal - the individual and the universal—humanity regardless of race, gender, class, sex— is a myth; focuses on collectives of people grouped according to their position in the world often based on race, gender, class, sex, etc
- evident in identity categories, identity politics, and standpoint theory
To sum up the history side of this: postmodernism arose out of the 1960s and began with theorists like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-Francois Lyotard who, after the First and Second World Wars, grew skeptical of technology and science and pessimistic about liberalism and the culture that collapsed in front of them.
“Their summary of this state took the form of an extremely radical skepticism and profound cynicism, particularly about language, knowledge, power, and the individual.”
They rejected the boundary between objective and subjective truth and viewed any one ‘Truth’ as a power play.
“Because of their focus on power dynamics, these thinkers argued that the powerful have, both intentionally and inadvertently, organized society to benefit them and perpetuate their power. They have done so by legitimating certain ways of talking about things as true, which then spread throughout society, creating societal rules that are viewed as common sense and perpetuated on all levels…”
Postmodernism took what the authors refer to as an ‘applied turn’ in the 80s and 90s. Instead of being a directionless group aiming merely to disrupt and problematize everything, they turned these ideas into actionable goals under the term ‘Social Justice’ to not just disrupt the systems they viewed as unjust, but to completely dismantle them.
Largely through discourses:
“If knowledge is a construct of power, which functions through ways of talking about things, knowledge can be changed and power structures toppled by changing the way we talk about things.”
Pluckrose and Lindsay spend a chapter on each of these studies in-depth on what it teaches. I will attempt to summarize them here:
Postcolonial Theory
“[Postcolonialism] proceeded upon the assumption that the European powers had a right to expand their territories and exert their political and cultural authority over other peoples and regions.”
This facet of critical theory is striving to dismantle anything that is white and Western. Most commonly this is the idea that rationality and science were weapons of the white West to colonize and dominate other cultures “dumber” than them.
There is also discussion here about revisionist history (editing history in favor of a political agenda) and research justice (only using/citing research from non-white males).
“Indian postcolonial scholar Meera Nanda argues that, by assigning science and reason to the West and traditional, spiritual, experiential beliefs to India, post-modern scholars perpetuate Orientalism and make it very difficult to address the many real issues that can best be tackled using science and reason.”
This is important because instead of rejecting the idea that people in other cultures can be rational and scientific and view everyone equally, they affirm these distinctions and just try to flip the power to the marginalized group.
Queer Theory
“Queer Theory presumes that oppression follows from categorization, which arises every time language constructs a sense of what is ‘normal’ by producing and maintaining rigid categories of sex (male and female), gender (masculine and feminine), and sexuality (straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and so on) and “scripting” people into them.”
Here critical theory is dismantling anything considered normative. They view categories as oppressive because of expectations they imply and because basically it confines people to boxes they don’t feel comfortable in.
True to postmodernist influence, queer theory rejects science in the form of biology because categories of sex and sexuality are social constructs created in a system of unjust power (completely ignoring the very real biological requirements of procreation). People are taught to ‘perform’ according to their gender thus perpetuating the system by complying (gender performativity).
Instead of the liberal goal of changing prejudiced attitudes toward non-normative gender and sexual identities, queer theory strives to unmake the entire concepts themselves. This is actually at odds with the larger philosophy of LGBT communities.
Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality
“Critical race Theory holds that race is a social construct that was created to maintain white privilege and white supremacy.”
Derrick Bell is the major forefather of CRT and said this:
“progress in American race relations is largely a mirage obscuring the fact that whites continue, consciously or unconsciously, to do all in their power to ensure their dominion and maintain their control.”
Radical black feminists including bell hooks, Audre Lorde, and Patricia Hill Collins piggy-backed off of this theory mixing it with gendered injustices. They employed standpoint theory which looks at your place in society based on your identity groups and how your positioning influences how you understand the world and are understood by it.
This directly leads to intersectionality which identifies those specific identity groups and labels them as oppressed or oppressors. They are constantly seeking out instances of prejudice, bigotry, and biases, not questioning IF they are present, but HOW they are present.
A main tenet of CRT is that “racism is present everywhere and always, and persistently works against people of color, who are aware of this, and for the benefit of white people, who tend not to be, as is their privilege.” They claim reason disadvantages women and racial minorities. They claim every disparity is because of discrimination instead of considering other possible causes— after all correlation does not equal causation. We must seek truth not prejudice.
Another complication of intersectionality is that all of these complex identity groups conflict with each other leading followers of intersectionality to claim surprising things: “straight black men have been described as the ‘white people of black people’” or “Lifelong human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was accused of racism for criticizing black rap musicians who sang about murdering gay people.”
The authors are clear that there are injustices that need to be righted and that we need to study our systems to identify where these might be occurring. But they rightly criticize the CRT definition of racism— “privilege plus power”— discussed more here.
They quote The Coddling of the American Mind, a phenomenal book which studies many of these ideas at work on university and college campuses, saying: “If we train young people to read insult, hostility, and prejudice into every interaction, they may increasingly see the world as hostile to them and fail to thrive in it.”
This also creates problems when we consider the postmodern knowledge principle as it pertains to CRT and intersectionality— knowledge obtained through lived experience from marginalized groups is authentic and authoritative and cannot be disputed— therefore, if someone says that a comment or an action is racist, it MUST be racist and cannot be questioned. We can see the dangers of this.
“It is bad psychology to tell people who do not believe that they are racist— who may even actively despise racism—that there is nothing they can do to stop themselves from being racist— and then ask them to help you. It is even less helpful to tell them that even their own good intentions are proof of their latent racism.”
Depending how familiar you are with CRT and intersectionality, these considerations may be alarming or surprising to you. Perhaps you believe few people actually adhere to this ideology. But this is the ideology found in the books White Fragility and How to Be an Antiracist (among others)— both NY Times bestsellers for many months— as well as the widely praised BLM organization in general. The influence of this thinking is greater and more widespread than you realize.
“By seeking to divide humans into marginalized identity groups and their oppressors, Social Justice risks fueling our worst tendencies— our tribalism and vengefulness.”
Feminism and Gender Studies
“‘Feminism’ in its most basic definition, means ‘belief in gender equality,’ and, in these terms, the majority of the population is now feminist.”
But, as the authors point out, feminism has branched into different camps, some more radicalized, that go beyond just gender equality to emphasizing patriarchy and capitalism’s role in female oppression, and viewing women as an oppressed group and men as an oppressor group.
Intersectional feminism is the most popular right now which draws on CRT, queer theory, and postcolonial theory as it challenges the categories of men and women, resists the expectation to conform to ‘white male’ ways of knowing things and operating in the world, and gives special attention to amplify the black female voices in the world.
“By centralizing social constructivist ideas of gender from radical feminism and queer Theory, biological explanations for why, on average, men and women make different life choices, display different degrees of psychological traits, have different interests, or exhibit different sexual behaviors cannot be included within intersectional feminist analysis. As there is considerable evidence that such differences exist and that they actually increase when women are free to make their own choices…”
All of these factors really complicate any scholars’ ability to even study gender studies in any meaningful way.
Disability and Fat Studies
“It’s original aim was to make society more accommodating and accepting of disabled people, and thereby improve their quality of life. Much of this was achieved by increasing disabled people’s access to the opportunities available to the non disabled…”
Reading this chapter was insane. I thought— this has to be a fringe idea that few buy into— but then I saw a bunch of viral TikTok videos about these and realized it’s bigger than I thought:
Again, true to the postmodern ideals, disability and ‘fatness’ are viewed as social constructs, not reality. It draws on queer theory in that ‘abled’ or ‘skinny’ are seen as normative so ‘disabled’ or ‘fat’ are non-normative and therefore marginalized and we must rid the world of these categories.
What was insane to me about this chapter was that adherents to this theory believe that to try to fix someone’s impairment or tell someone to lose weight for their health is oppression and hate. To view a disability or obesity as a negative thing is oppressive. They say that disabled people who desire to ‘be fixed’ have “internalized ableism” reinforcing the oppressive categories. (See also CRT’s use of this ‘internalization’ of their oppression on black people who disagree with CRT)
They believe these not to be disabilities or negative things but a core part of their identity. Some disabled and overweight people would agree with this but I think the majority of disabled people would like a better quality of life or be seen as more than their disability. How is denying cochlear implants for deaf people helping them? How is demonizing doctors who diagnose obesity and recommend weight loss to subvert heart disease and diabetes helping people?
Heart disease, scientifically connected to obesity, is one of the leading causes of death in America.
Read this response Linda X. Z. Brown (autistic disability rights activist) gave to someone wondering if they were autistic:
“Well, it’s not up to me to tell you how you should or should not identify, but I don’t believe in giving power to the medical-industrial complex and its monopoly over getting to define and determine who counts and who does not count as Autistic.”
I wonder what kind of doctor she would request if she needed heart surgery. Surely not a doctor with a monopoly on doing heart surgeries. Because a doctor is just a person “with letters behind their name” right?
What started off as a legitimate crusade to improve the quality of life for a lot of people derailed pretty fantastically.
Social Justice and Critical Theory
Hopefully after reading through my brief (ha!) synopsis of these critical theories you have a better understanding of how pervasive these beliefs really are and what some of the dangerous implications are.
Social justice is an imperative. We must seek to reform and eliminate prejudice and injustice. But the ideology found in critical theory is not doing what it thinks it is. It is not creating unity and eliminating racism. It is dividing, categorizing, labeling, and encouraging people to find MORE racism and prejudice.
It is claiming oppression everywhere which takes away attention from actual injustices. We are focused on the wrong things and the actual oppressed and marginalized are only further oppressed and marginalized.
It is creating a culture of animosity, an us vs. them mentality, and the celebration and elevation of victimhood. None of these are helpful in cultivating a culture of peace and unity.
The conclusion of this book brings us back to its premise: the postmodern ideas of the 60s have adapted and fragmented into various critical theories that have formidably worked their way into “intersectional Social Justice scholarship and activism and have begun to take root in the public consciousness as allegedly factual descriptions of the workings of knowledge, power, and human social relations.”
The knowledge principle is ‘realized’ saying “patriarchy, white supremacy, imperialism, cisnormativity, heteronormativity, ableism, and fat phobia are literally structuring society and infecting everything”
The political principle is ‘realized’ as “absolute certainty that all white people are racist, all men are sexist, sex is not biological and exists on a spectrum, language can be literal violence, denial of gender identity is killing people, the wish to remedy disability and obesity is hateful, and everything needs to be decolonized.
Critical theory is not presented as a theory but as Truth with a capital T. Disagreement is not tolerated and regularly demonized or ‘canceled.’ Dissenting voices must be silenced lest the dominant voice of privilege prevail once again over the marginalized. And to talk about any of these issues at all, one must use an approved vocabulary and validate standpoint theory and identity politics.
“It is not exaggeration to observe that Social Justice Theorists have created a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind.”
“The idea that social justice is best served by restricting what can be said, and by banning some ideas and terminologies and enforcing others, is unsupported by history, evidence, or reason.”
Goodreads is telling me I have to be done now.
I'll leave you with this: While I don't agree with their overall solution, this is a VERY worthwhile read!
Click here for full review & other books on this topic!
This book has everything you need to know about Critical Theory. But before you check out because you don’t find this interesting or relevant, I would like to encourage you to still engage in the material.
I don’t know if most people know what critical theory is or if it even matters. Perhaps you only think of critical race theory when you hear critical theory.
The authors of Cynical Theories are not saying that all the facets of critical theory are necessarily widely accepted and promoted. The main point of this book is to trace the history of critical theory and its roots in postmodernism and then expose how these ideologies have formed into various studies (i.e. critical race theory, queer theory, etc) and how they are currently influencing our world, largely unrealized under the guise of social justice.
This book has a ton of information in it so I’m going to do my best to summarize the main points. I’ve also been compiling a glossary of terms (see link below) to help navigate the jargon that goes with critical theory, social justice, and related topics.
I think it’s important to understand critical theory beyond just critical race theory- to understand where many widely accepted beliefs today have been rooted in. Many theories sound good on paper but don’t hold up to scrutiny... like critical theory.
There is a lot to think about with critical theory and if we don’t take ownership of understanding influential ideologies, we might find ourselves misled into a culture that does more harm than good.
The authors argue, and I would agree, that the social justice widely advocated for today, because it is rooted in these postmodern ideas, is not actually accomplishing what they proclaim.
Regardless of your current view of critical theory or critical race theory, please consider the information and think for yourself.
Throughout the whole book, the authors keep coming back to two principles and four themes of (applied) postmodernism influential to the origins of critical theory.
Two Principles of Postmodernism:
1. The knowledge principle: Skepticism about whether objective truth is attainable; ‘truth’ or knowledge is a construct
2. The political principle: Society is formed by systems of power and hierarchies who decide what can be known and how
Four Major Themes of Postmodernism:
1. The blurring of boundaries- pushing against established categories that have widely been accepted as true
- evident in the fluidity and ambiguity of gender/sexuality categories
2. The power of language- belief that language controls society because of how you communicate about things and is inherently dangerous and unreliable
- evident in the use of the words as verbal violence, microaggressions, safe spaces, trigger warnings
3. Cultural relativism- critiquing other cultures is a weapon and oppressive; meaningful critique of any culture can only be done from within lest one culture be viewed superior to another
4. The loss of the individual and the universal - the individual and the universal—humanity regardless of race, gender, class, sex— is a myth; focuses on collectives of people grouped according to their position in the world often based on race, gender, class, sex, etc
- evident in identity categories, identity politics, and standpoint theory
To sum up the history side of this: postmodernism arose out of the 1960s and began with theorists like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-Francois Lyotard who, after the First and Second World Wars, grew skeptical of technology and science and pessimistic about liberalism and the culture that collapsed in front of them.
“Their summary of this state took the form of an extremely radical skepticism and profound cynicism, particularly about language, knowledge, power, and the individual.”
They rejected the boundary between objective and subjective truth and viewed any one ‘Truth’ as a power play.
“Because of their focus on power dynamics, these thinkers argued that the powerful have, both intentionally and inadvertently, organized society to benefit them and perpetuate their power. They have done so by legitimating certain ways of talking about things as true, which then spread throughout society, creating societal rules that are viewed as common sense and perpetuated on all levels…”
Postmodernism took what the authors refer to as an ‘applied turn’ in the 80s and 90s. Instead of being a directionless group aiming merely to disrupt and problematize everything, they turned these ideas into actionable goals under the term ‘Social Justice’ to not just disrupt the systems they viewed as unjust, but to completely dismantle them.
Largely through discourses:
“If knowledge is a construct of power, which functions through ways of talking about things, knowledge can be changed and power structures toppled by changing the way we talk about things.”
Pluckrose and Lindsay spend a chapter on each of these studies in-depth on what it teaches. I will attempt to summarize them here:
Postcolonial Theory
“[Postcolonialism] proceeded upon the assumption that the European powers had a right to expand their territories and exert their political and cultural authority over other peoples and regions.”
This facet of critical theory is striving to dismantle anything that is white and Western. Most commonly this is the idea that rationality and science were weapons of the white West to colonize and dominate other cultures “dumber” than them.
There is also discussion here about revisionist history (editing history in favor of a political agenda) and research justice (only using/citing research from non-white males).
“Indian postcolonial scholar Meera Nanda argues that, by assigning science and reason to the West and traditional, spiritual, experiential beliefs to India, post-modern scholars perpetuate Orientalism and make it very difficult to address the many real issues that can best be tackled using science and reason.”
This is important because instead of rejecting the idea that people in other cultures can be rational and scientific and view everyone equally, they affirm these distinctions and just try to flip the power to the marginalized group.
Queer Theory
“Queer Theory presumes that oppression follows from categorization, which arises every time language constructs a sense of what is ‘normal’ by producing and maintaining rigid categories of sex (male and female), gender (masculine and feminine), and sexuality (straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and so on) and “scripting” people into them.”
Here critical theory is dismantling anything considered normative. They view categories as oppressive because of expectations they imply and because basically it confines people to boxes they don’t feel comfortable in.
True to postmodernist influence, queer theory rejects science in the form of biology because categories of sex and sexuality are social constructs created in a system of unjust power (completely ignoring the very real biological requirements of procreation). People are taught to ‘perform’ according to their gender thus perpetuating the system by complying (gender performativity).
Instead of the liberal goal of changing prejudiced attitudes toward non-normative gender and sexual identities, queer theory strives to unmake the entire concepts themselves. This is actually at odds with the larger philosophy of LGBT communities.
Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality
“Critical race Theory holds that race is a social construct that was created to maintain white privilege and white supremacy.”
Derrick Bell is the major forefather of CRT and said this:
“progress in American race relations is largely a mirage obscuring the fact that whites continue, consciously or unconsciously, to do all in their power to ensure their dominion and maintain their control.”
Radical black feminists including bell hooks, Audre Lorde, and Patricia Hill Collins piggy-backed off of this theory mixing it with gendered injustices. They employed standpoint theory which looks at your place in society based on your identity groups and how your positioning influences how you understand the world and are understood by it.
This directly leads to intersectionality which identifies those specific identity groups and labels them as oppressed or oppressors. They are constantly seeking out instances of prejudice, bigotry, and biases, not questioning IF they are present, but HOW they are present.
A main tenet of CRT is that “racism is present everywhere and always, and persistently works against people of color, who are aware of this, and for the benefit of white people, who tend not to be, as is their privilege.” They claim reason disadvantages women and racial minorities. They claim every disparity is because of discrimination instead of considering other possible causes— after all correlation does not equal causation. We must seek truth not prejudice.
Another complication of intersectionality is that all of these complex identity groups conflict with each other leading followers of intersectionality to claim surprising things: “straight black men have been described as the ‘white people of black people’” or “Lifelong human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was accused of racism for criticizing black rap musicians who sang about murdering gay people.”
The authors are clear that there are injustices that need to be righted and that we need to study our systems to identify where these might be occurring. But they rightly criticize the CRT definition of racism— “privilege plus power”— discussed more here.
They quote The Coddling of the American Mind, a phenomenal book which studies many of these ideas at work on university and college campuses, saying: “If we train young people to read insult, hostility, and prejudice into every interaction, they may increasingly see the world as hostile to them and fail to thrive in it.”
This also creates problems when we consider the postmodern knowledge principle as it pertains to CRT and intersectionality— knowledge obtained through lived experience from marginalized groups is authentic and authoritative and cannot be disputed— therefore, if someone says that a comment or an action is racist, it MUST be racist and cannot be questioned. We can see the dangers of this.
“It is bad psychology to tell people who do not believe that they are racist— who may even actively despise racism—that there is nothing they can do to stop themselves from being racist— and then ask them to help you. It is even less helpful to tell them that even their own good intentions are proof of their latent racism.”
Depending how familiar you are with CRT and intersectionality, these considerations may be alarming or surprising to you. Perhaps you believe few people actually adhere to this ideology. But this is the ideology found in the books White Fragility and How to Be an Antiracist (among others)— both NY Times bestsellers for many months— as well as the widely praised BLM organization in general. The influence of this thinking is greater and more widespread than you realize.
“By seeking to divide humans into marginalized identity groups and their oppressors, Social Justice risks fueling our worst tendencies— our tribalism and vengefulness.”
Feminism and Gender Studies
“‘Feminism’ in its most basic definition, means ‘belief in gender equality,’ and, in these terms, the majority of the population is now feminist.”
But, as the authors point out, feminism has branched into different camps, some more radicalized, that go beyond just gender equality to emphasizing patriarchy and capitalism’s role in female oppression, and viewing women as an oppressed group and men as an oppressor group.
Intersectional feminism is the most popular right now which draws on CRT, queer theory, and postcolonial theory as it challenges the categories of men and women, resists the expectation to conform to ‘white male’ ways of knowing things and operating in the world, and gives special attention to amplify the black female voices in the world.
“By centralizing social constructivist ideas of gender from radical feminism and queer Theory, biological explanations for why, on average, men and women make different life choices, display different degrees of psychological traits, have different interests, or exhibit different sexual behaviors cannot be included within intersectional feminist analysis. As there is considerable evidence that such differences exist and that they actually increase when women are free to make their own choices…”
All of these factors really complicate any scholars’ ability to even study gender studies in any meaningful way.
Disability and Fat Studies
“It’s original aim was to make society more accommodating and accepting of disabled people, and thereby improve their quality of life. Much of this was achieved by increasing disabled people’s access to the opportunities available to the non disabled…”
Reading this chapter was insane. I thought— this has to be a fringe idea that few buy into— but then I saw a bunch of viral TikTok videos about these and realized it’s bigger than I thought:
Again, true to the postmodern ideals, disability and ‘fatness’ are viewed as social constructs, not reality. It draws on queer theory in that ‘abled’ or ‘skinny’ are seen as normative so ‘disabled’ or ‘fat’ are non-normative and therefore marginalized and we must rid the world of these categories.
What was insane to me about this chapter was that adherents to this theory believe that to try to fix someone’s impairment or tell someone to lose weight for their health is oppression and hate. To view a disability or obesity as a negative thing is oppressive. They say that disabled people who desire to ‘be fixed’ have “internalized ableism” reinforcing the oppressive categories. (See also CRT’s use of this ‘internalization’ of their oppression on black people who disagree with CRT)
They believe these not to be disabilities or negative things but a core part of their identity. Some disabled and overweight people would agree with this but I think the majority of disabled people would like a better quality of life or be seen as more than their disability. How is denying cochlear implants for deaf people helping them? How is demonizing doctors who diagnose obesity and recommend weight loss to subvert heart disease and diabetes helping people?
Heart disease, scientifically connected to obesity, is one of the leading causes of death in America.
Read this response Linda X. Z. Brown (autistic disability rights activist) gave to someone wondering if they were autistic:
“Well, it’s not up to me to tell you how you should or should not identify, but I don’t believe in giving power to the medical-industrial complex and its monopoly over getting to define and determine who counts and who does not count as Autistic.”
I wonder what kind of doctor she would request if she needed heart surgery. Surely not a doctor with a monopoly on doing heart surgeries. Because a doctor is just a person “with letters behind their name” right?
What started off as a legitimate crusade to improve the quality of life for a lot of people derailed pretty fantastically.
Social Justice and Critical Theory
Hopefully after reading through my brief (ha!) synopsis of these critical theories you have a better understanding of how pervasive these beliefs really are and what some of the dangerous implications are.
Social justice is an imperative. We must seek to reform and eliminate prejudice and injustice. But the ideology found in critical theory is not doing what it thinks it is. It is not creating unity and eliminating racism. It is dividing, categorizing, labeling, and encouraging people to find MORE racism and prejudice.
It is claiming oppression everywhere which takes away attention from actual injustices. We are focused on the wrong things and the actual oppressed and marginalized are only further oppressed and marginalized.
It is creating a culture of animosity, an us vs. them mentality, and the celebration and elevation of victimhood. None of these are helpful in cultivating a culture of peace and unity.
The conclusion of this book brings us back to its premise: the postmodern ideas of the 60s have adapted and fragmented into various critical theories that have formidably worked their way into “intersectional Social Justice scholarship and activism and have begun to take root in the public consciousness as allegedly factual descriptions of the workings of knowledge, power, and human social relations.”
The knowledge principle is ‘realized’ saying “patriarchy, white supremacy, imperialism, cisnormativity, heteronormativity, ableism, and fat phobia are literally structuring society and infecting everything”
The political principle is ‘realized’ as “absolute certainty that all white people are racist, all men are sexist, sex is not biological and exists on a spectrum, language can be literal violence, denial of gender identity is killing people, the wish to remedy disability and obesity is hateful, and everything needs to be decolonized.
Critical theory is not presented as a theory but as Truth with a capital T. Disagreement is not tolerated and regularly demonized or ‘canceled.’ Dissenting voices must be silenced lest the dominant voice of privilege prevail once again over the marginalized. And to talk about any of these issues at all, one must use an approved vocabulary and validate standpoint theory and identity politics.
“It is not exaggeration to observe that Social Justice Theorists have created a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind.”
“The idea that social justice is best served by restricting what can be said, and by banning some ideas and terminologies and enforcing others, is unsupported by history, evidence, or reason.”
Goodreads is telling me I have to be done now.
I'll leave you with this: While I don't agree with their overall solution, this is a VERY worthwhile read!
Click here for full review & other books on this topic!
This book was just okay for me. I bumped it up from 2 stars because reading the author’s note at the end I had to give her credit for the way she utilized and expounded on true events. I thought her combination and addition of characters was clever. But overall, not my favorite.
Liked: the plot, particularly the 1915 storyline, but also how it came to fruition in the 1945 storyline. The first line of the book: ‘The first person I met in England was a hallucination’- I thought was an interesting and curious start.
Disliked: pretty much all the characters. They weren’t likable. I had high hopes for Charlie when she was introduced as a math person but that trait did not fit in with the rest of her words, actions, and personality. It was not a believable part of her. Young Eve was okay, but I didn’t feel like any characters were written in a becoming or ‘rootable’ way. I’m not sure about all the ins and outs of the 1945 era but the writing and dialogue for those portions seemed questionable as to era-accuracy. The 1945 storyline dragged on too long. Hardly anything of significance happened until the end. The 1915 story was the meat of the book and everything else was a little like pulling teeth.
I’ve read quite a few historical fiction books from a variety of wars but I would recommend several others over this one. It had potential but fell flat.
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
Liked: the plot, particularly the 1915 storyline, but also how it came to fruition in the 1945 storyline. The first line of the book: ‘The first person I met in England was a hallucination’- I thought was an interesting and curious start.
Disliked: pretty much all the characters. They weren’t likable. I had high hopes for Charlie when she was introduced as a math person but that trait did not fit in with the rest of her words, actions, and personality. It was not a believable part of her. Young Eve was okay, but I didn’t feel like any characters were written in a becoming or ‘rootable’ way. I’m not sure about all the ins and outs of the 1945 era but the writing and dialogue for those portions seemed questionable as to era-accuracy. The 1945 storyline dragged on too long. Hardly anything of significance happened until the end. The 1915 story was the meat of the book and everything else was a little like pulling teeth.
I’ve read quite a few historical fiction books from a variety of wars but I would recommend several others over this one. It had potential but fell flat.
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
Full Disclosure: This book is just over 600 pages. It took me 2 weeks to read and I have 4 kids under 5 so I feel like that’s a pretty fast read!
Could it have been shorter? Yeah. But I didn’t feel bored reading it at all. I was pleasantly surprised by this hyped up book!
This is a book about code breaking in WWII at the famed and mysterious Bletchley Park in England.
I read Quinn’s The Alice Network and I found this book far more enjoyable. I’ve always found the breaking of the Enigma code intriguing and the characters in this book were much more likable.
Like The Alice Network there were two storylines: 1947 post-war and then 1938 as the war was beginning. Unlike The Alice Network, both storylines were intriguing and purposeful.
The earlier storyline follows three soon-to-be friends— Osla, Mab, and Beth— as they each play their roles breaking/translating the code at Bletchley Park, keeping secrets, and navigating relationships. The later storyline tells us that at some point these friends have a severe falling out.
But now, in 1947, they must reunite. One of them writes from an asylum, framed for treason, with information about a possible traitor from their time at Bletchley Park. She suspects this traitor was feeding intel to the Soviets, Allies in WWII but now enemies. The window to catch the traitor is rapidly closing and their resources are slim. Can they break the elusive Rose Code before one of them loses their mind altogether? (remember lobotomies??)
I wasn’t convinced of Quinn’s historical portrayal in The Alice Network, but in this book I thought she did a fantastic job creating this era— from the clothing and style to the vernacular to the cultural norms— she did her research. There are many comments or situations that remind us of how women were viewed during this time and how they experienced the world during a war and during the 1930s and 40s eras. I thought that was really interesting.
The main plot is not directly historical record, though traitors were probably part of Bletchley Park’s story at some point, but many of the characters and finer points of this book are based on history. Her author’s note at the end details the facts and the liberties she took.
All of the people working at Bletchley Park were sworn to an oath of secrecy that if broken would result in being shot. It’s crazy how long thousands of people have kept their secrets, now finally being free to reveal their experiences, but it attests to the success of the mission of Bletchley Park and its outstations.
Some people married each other and found out later they had both been stationed there the whole time but in different huts and had never met! You weren’t even allowed to share information between huts. Generally, everyone was only privy to their own hut’s work.
Quinn masterfully incorporates into the book how this stress of hiding things impacts various relationships.
I would highly recommend this book. It’s intriguing, inspiring, and mysterious. You see a different side of the WWII drama. There’s suspense, love, heartache (I cried), victory, and a bunch of historical knowledge. What else could you want in a historical fiction book?
If this book puts you on an Enigma binge, Quinn also includes a list of other fiction/nonfiction books about Bletchley Park and the Enigma machine as well as some movies. I have seen The Imitation Game with Benedict Cumberbatch and that was a great film- I’ll have to rewatch it now that I have more info!
I also wanted to share these three links with you. There is a lot of detail in the book about how the Engima and Bombe machines work and how they went about decoding the code. I enjoy doing cryptograms and thinking about codes but I was having a hard time picturing how the whole thing worked. After I finished the book I did some googling and found these short videos that were super helpful in understanding and visualizing what the characters in the book were actually doing:
The Enigma Machine
The Flaw in the Enigma Code
The Bombe Machine
Bonus:
Here are some fun words I learned while reading this book. Most are informal British:
- Boffin: a person engaged in scientific or technical research (slang)
- Splashed out: splurge (slang)
- Squiffy: slightly drunk (slang)
- Potty: silly or slightly crazy (slang)
- Durance vile: a very long prison sentence
- Rounders game: without going into detail, it’s a version of baseball
- Vigenere cipher: I’m not going to explain this one, but this website does a good job
Language and sexual content rating: PG-13- there are a few sexual encounters and innuendos, the language is probably more PG
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
Could it have been shorter? Yeah. But I didn’t feel bored reading it at all. I was pleasantly surprised by this hyped up book!
This is a book about code breaking in WWII at the famed and mysterious Bletchley Park in England.
I read Quinn’s The Alice Network and I found this book far more enjoyable. I’ve always found the breaking of the Enigma code intriguing and the characters in this book were much more likable.
Like The Alice Network there were two storylines: 1947 post-war and then 1938 as the war was beginning. Unlike The Alice Network, both storylines were intriguing and purposeful.
The earlier storyline follows three soon-to-be friends— Osla, Mab, and Beth— as they each play their roles breaking/translating the code at Bletchley Park, keeping secrets, and navigating relationships. The later storyline tells us that at some point these friends have a severe falling out.
But now, in 1947, they must reunite. One of them writes from an asylum, framed for treason, with information about a possible traitor from their time at Bletchley Park. She suspects this traitor was feeding intel to the Soviets, Allies in WWII but now enemies. The window to catch the traitor is rapidly closing and their resources are slim. Can they break the elusive Rose Code before one of them loses their mind altogether? (remember lobotomies??)
I wasn’t convinced of Quinn’s historical portrayal in The Alice Network, but in this book I thought she did a fantastic job creating this era— from the clothing and style to the vernacular to the cultural norms— she did her research. There are many comments or situations that remind us of how women were viewed during this time and how they experienced the world during a war and during the 1930s and 40s eras. I thought that was really interesting.
The main plot is not directly historical record, though traitors were probably part of Bletchley Park’s story at some point, but many of the characters and finer points of this book are based on history. Her author’s note at the end details the facts and the liberties she took.
All of the people working at Bletchley Park were sworn to an oath of secrecy that if broken would result in being shot. It’s crazy how long thousands of people have kept their secrets, now finally being free to reveal their experiences, but it attests to the success of the mission of Bletchley Park and its outstations.
Some people married each other and found out later they had both been stationed there the whole time but in different huts and had never met! You weren’t even allowed to share information between huts. Generally, everyone was only privy to their own hut’s work.
Quinn masterfully incorporates into the book how this stress of hiding things impacts various relationships.
I would highly recommend this book. It’s intriguing, inspiring, and mysterious. You see a different side of the WWII drama. There’s suspense, love, heartache (I cried), victory, and a bunch of historical knowledge. What else could you want in a historical fiction book?
If this book puts you on an Enigma binge, Quinn also includes a list of other fiction/nonfiction books about Bletchley Park and the Enigma machine as well as some movies. I have seen The Imitation Game with Benedict Cumberbatch and that was a great film- I’ll have to rewatch it now that I have more info!
I also wanted to share these three links with you. There is a lot of detail in the book about how the Engima and Bombe machines work and how they went about decoding the code. I enjoy doing cryptograms and thinking about codes but I was having a hard time picturing how the whole thing worked. After I finished the book I did some googling and found these short videos that were super helpful in understanding and visualizing what the characters in the book were actually doing:
The Enigma Machine
The Flaw in the Enigma Code
The Bombe Machine
Bonus:
Here are some fun words I learned while reading this book. Most are informal British:
- Boffin: a person engaged in scientific or technical research (slang)
- Splashed out: splurge (slang)
- Squiffy: slightly drunk (slang)
- Potty: silly or slightly crazy (slang)
- Durance vile: a very long prison sentence
- Rounders game: without going into detail, it’s a version of baseball
- Vigenere cipher: I’m not going to explain this one, but this website does a good job
Language and sexual content rating: PG-13- there are a few sexual encounters and innuendos, the language is probably more PG
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
This was a captivating and heart-wrenching account of one man's escape from the devastation of North Korea. North Korea has been somewhat of an enigma for me. I obviously knew of the corruption and the poor living conditions for the citizens there, and the psychotic leaders they have had. But this book filled in a lot of gaps and it's worse there than you could have imagined. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear how Ishikawa had to survive and take care of his family. And the circumstances even following his escape break your heart. If this book doesn't impassion you to want to do something for people in North Korea, I don't know what could.
And that's where this book left me- feeling a little helpless. It's obviously not an easy place to offer aid. One overwhelming feeling expressed in this book is hopelessness. The people of North Korea have no hope. No light at the end of the tunnel. They've been lied to and beaten down and no opportunity to better their standing or their life. Everything is a lose lose situation. They have nothing to live for.
But hopelessness has a very real and powerful antidote: Hope. Eternal hope. Hope that is imperishable, unfading, unblemished, and kept in Heaven for us. No one can take it from you. Earth and it's sufferings are temporary, but hope and life in Heaven is forever.
That's what the people of North Korea need more than anything else. I don't know how to physically bring them this good news, but the Holy Spirit has ultimate authority and no boundaries and can reach even the most isolated people. So I can pray for them. I can pray that God reveals himself and his hope to people who are trapped in abandonment and despair.
Ishikawa's story breaks my heart, his bitterness comes from a very real place and no one can blame any of them for sinking into such a dark emotional place, but we don't have to leave them there. We can offer hope. And I think that's the most important takeway from this book- people need the good news. Period.
And that's where this book left me- feeling a little helpless. It's obviously not an easy place to offer aid. One overwhelming feeling expressed in this book is hopelessness. The people of North Korea have no hope. No light at the end of the tunnel. They've been lied to and beaten down and no opportunity to better their standing or their life. Everything is a lose lose situation. They have nothing to live for.
But hopelessness has a very real and powerful antidote: Hope. Eternal hope. Hope that is imperishable, unfading, unblemished, and kept in Heaven for us. No one can take it from you. Earth and it's sufferings are temporary, but hope and life in Heaven is forever.
That's what the people of North Korea need more than anything else. I don't know how to physically bring them this good news, but the Holy Spirit has ultimate authority and no boundaries and can reach even the most isolated people. So I can pray for them. I can pray that God reveals himself and his hope to people who are trapped in abandonment and despair.
Ishikawa's story breaks my heart, his bitterness comes from a very real place and no one can blame any of them for sinking into such a dark emotional place, but we don't have to leave them there. We can offer hope. And I think that's the most important takeway from this book- people need the good news. Period.
“The spark of human dignity is never completely distinguished, and given the oxygen of freedom and the power of love, it can grow again.”
In 2018 I read Ishikawa’s North Korean escape story called A River in Darkness and was shocked by how bad it really was in North Korea. Park’s story corroborates many things from Ishikawa’s experience, but hers is also different.
Both stories are heartbreaking and infuriating. Both stories showcase the power of resilience and the strength of resolve to survive and overcome.
But while Ishikawa’s story has a prominent thread of bitterness, Park’s story infuses forgiveness and a spirit of justice. She is on a path to help others like herself and to hold North Korea accountable for their atrocious governing and lack of care for their people (to put it kindly).
Yeonmi’s place in the North Korean social system as a young girl differed than Masaji, who was a farmer. So she didn’t have to experience some of the inhumane and utter desperation of complete starvation like Masaji, but at the same time, he never had to experience the abuse Yeonmi did as a woman being trafficked when she thought she was escaping.
It is obviously not a competition to see who was worse off, I mean only to recognize that there are many differing experiences of North Koreans who have escaped or who are still experiencing this oppression, but all stories’ common denominator is the evil that is ruling North Korea and the corruption in other countries as well, including China and Mongolia who do not stop trafficking and threaten (and carry out) the return of refugees to North Korea.
You can’t read a story like this without feeling admiration and awe that she survived what she did and went on to overcome the scars of her past and resist the North Korean stigma that ostracized her when she reached South Korea. The book is aptly titled— In Order to Live— because with each section of her journey— North Korea, China, South Korea— we are confronted with the impossible choices a person must make to survive.
So, because it’s a heartrending and inspiring story, I was curious what the 1-star ratings could possibly be about. Of course any book will have people who didn’t like the subject matter, found it boring, or just want to troll, but I was surprised to see all of the challenges to the veracity of Park’s story. There are links to articles exposing “inconsistencies” in her story, questioning her intentions and authenticity because she can’t keep her story straight. Others defend these inconsistencies, pointing to the ways trauma influences our memory and recall.
I’m not here to make a judgment, although it seems pretty crazy to call her a liar. I don’t know what is really gained by these accusations. The fact remains that regardless of the exact minutae of her story, North Korea is controlling and killing its people, humans are being trafficked all over the world, and people are being ostracized because of their country of origin.
The story forces you outside your comfortable US bubble to share in someone’s pain and encourage them in their triumph over their suffering. And it reiterates the need for all countries to hold each other accountable to protect human life.
To comment on an obvious political correlation, we peek into what life is like when the government controls the lives, history, religion, and discourses of their people.
Yeonmi says:
“I was taught never to express my opinion, never to question anything. I was taught to simply follow what the government told me to do or say or think… In North Korea, it’s not enough for the government to control where you go, what you learn, where you work, and what you say. They need to control you through your emotions, making you a slave to the state by destroying your individuality, and your ability to react to situations based on your own experience of the world."
We can see inklings of this in America with the attempts to control language, silence dissenting viewpoints (especially in universities), demonizing certain people groups and blaming the world’s troubles on them, and discourage questioning of beliefs of certain people groups.
Regardless of politics, Park’s story also helped me to see America through the eyes of refugees from other countries. To see what they see and feel what they feel when they come into a completely new country with different language, customs, or even history, while still reeling with the trauma of their past and escape. We could do far more to accommodate and help refugees, to care for them, and believe in them to start anew.
And most importantly, as I stated in my review of Ishikawa’s book, these stories emphasize the need of the Good News, the hope of the Gospel, to reach these desolate places. The Gospel that defines the sanctity of life, a love unconditional and unending, the promise of justice and redemption, and the hope of something better than this broken world.
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog
In 2018 I read Ishikawa’s North Korean escape story called A River in Darkness and was shocked by how bad it really was in North Korea. Park’s story corroborates many things from Ishikawa’s experience, but hers is also different.
Both stories are heartbreaking and infuriating. Both stories showcase the power of resilience and the strength of resolve to survive and overcome.
But while Ishikawa’s story has a prominent thread of bitterness, Park’s story infuses forgiveness and a spirit of justice. She is on a path to help others like herself and to hold North Korea accountable for their atrocious governing and lack of care for their people (to put it kindly).
Yeonmi’s place in the North Korean social system as a young girl differed than Masaji, who was a farmer. So she didn’t have to experience some of the inhumane and utter desperation of complete starvation like Masaji, but at the same time, he never had to experience the abuse Yeonmi did as a woman being trafficked when she thought she was escaping.
It is obviously not a competition to see who was worse off, I mean only to recognize that there are many differing experiences of North Koreans who have escaped or who are still experiencing this oppression, but all stories’ common denominator is the evil that is ruling North Korea and the corruption in other countries as well, including China and Mongolia who do not stop trafficking and threaten (and carry out) the return of refugees to North Korea.
You can’t read a story like this without feeling admiration and awe that she survived what she did and went on to overcome the scars of her past and resist the North Korean stigma that ostracized her when she reached South Korea. The book is aptly titled— In Order to Live— because with each section of her journey— North Korea, China, South Korea— we are confronted with the impossible choices a person must make to survive.
So, because it’s a heartrending and inspiring story, I was curious what the 1-star ratings could possibly be about. Of course any book will have people who didn’t like the subject matter, found it boring, or just want to troll, but I was surprised to see all of the challenges to the veracity of Park’s story. There are links to articles exposing “inconsistencies” in her story, questioning her intentions and authenticity because she can’t keep her story straight. Others defend these inconsistencies, pointing to the ways trauma influences our memory and recall.
I’m not here to make a judgment, although it seems pretty crazy to call her a liar. I don’t know what is really gained by these accusations. The fact remains that regardless of the exact minutae of her story, North Korea is controlling and killing its people, humans are being trafficked all over the world, and people are being ostracized because of their country of origin.
The story forces you outside your comfortable US bubble to share in someone’s pain and encourage them in their triumph over their suffering. And it reiterates the need for all countries to hold each other accountable to protect human life.
To comment on an obvious political correlation, we peek into what life is like when the government controls the lives, history, religion, and discourses of their people.
Yeonmi says:
“I was taught never to express my opinion, never to question anything. I was taught to simply follow what the government told me to do or say or think… In North Korea, it’s not enough for the government to control where you go, what you learn, where you work, and what you say. They need to control you through your emotions, making you a slave to the state by destroying your individuality, and your ability to react to situations based on your own experience of the world."
We can see inklings of this in America with the attempts to control language, silence dissenting viewpoints (especially in universities), demonizing certain people groups and blaming the world’s troubles on them, and discourage questioning of beliefs of certain people groups.
Regardless of politics, Park’s story also helped me to see America through the eyes of refugees from other countries. To see what they see and feel what they feel when they come into a completely new country with different language, customs, or even history, while still reeling with the trauma of their past and escape. We could do far more to accommodate and help refugees, to care for them, and believe in them to start anew.
And most importantly, as I stated in my review of Ishikawa’s book, these stories emphasize the need of the Good News, the hope of the Gospel, to reach these desolate places. The Gospel that defines the sanctity of life, a love unconditional and unending, the promise of justice and redemption, and the hope of something better than this broken world.
Book Review Blog: www.shelfreflection.com
Pinterest: @shelfreflectionblog