I am a minister (UCC) and a scientist (a real one). This book is but one from a group of so-called creation-scientists. As a minister/scientist, I have to say this book, and others like it, are unhelpful garbage. I believe that science and theology must go together - and have preached that they must, and that they very well do go together in a beautiful and meaningful way. But to do that, one has to have a mature enough faith to realize that the Bible is not a record of scientific fact.

As far as creation-science books go, Ackerman's book is easily one of the worst. His conclusions consistently cross over into the realm of science-fiction (and really bad science-fiction at that), which only makes sense, since his data and his starting points are also equally into the ream of bad science-fiction. One thing the fundamentalists like to do is ignore actual scientific data, and simply cite other creationists (assuming they even cite anything at all). Since they are, obviously, speaking for God, I guess they don't need footnotes or reproducible science data, or anything else that anyone would need making an argument. And that's what appalls me so much about creation-science (and all fundamentalist theology, actually) - that writers have no need to try to sway their audience, they simply imply that everything they say is true, so why does it need to be cited, proven, or substantiated? I am appalled at books like this because they obfuscate the real issue (of a majestic, mighty, beautifully creative God) to ke! ep their parishioners from actually thinking. I mean, thinking leads to questions, and once they start questioning a fundamentalist theology, they realize it is wrong and bad, and they move elsewhere. So, books like this are excellent resources to keep your laity and your parishioners ignorant, confused, and afraid of the world outside the church, and, therefore, books like this keep their almighty donations in the church.

It's even more bizarre when a psychologist, which isn't even really a scientistic, tries to venture into the realm of using psychology to prove a creationist stance. It's so funny, it's worth reading, but it's so funny, it makes me sad that some so-called Christians actually think this way, and *don't* think it's funny.

Please remember I am saying this as a minister, who serves a church, and who loves the church mightily. But I also believe that evolution is yet another magnificent manifestation of our wonderful creator's process. The Bible is about faithful life for us, and the faithful (and most times unfaithful) lives of our forebears. It is not, and I am very confident in saying this, a science textbook. Evolution does not go against the Bible at all. I don't think that one has to be a creationist to believe we are created in the image of God - I believe God created everything (but not in the strict order given in the two *very different* creation stories ni Genesis), and I also believe that evolution is certainly plausable, and the most likely vehicle for God's creation. Ackerman believes, and I don't know why because he never says it, that if one is an evolutionist, then one cannot possibly believe that we are created in God's image. Well, folks, I am an evolutionist, and I do believe we are created in God's image.

Please, I ask the authors and the followers, please open your eyes and realize that books like this are written to keep you ignorant of truth, incapable of thought, and powerless under your clergy-persons and elders and deacons and other people who benefit from your fear of going to hell.

Read this book **only** because you should know what the creation-scientists are doing. But for all means, don't read this book thinking that you will find something true in it.

"In God's Image After All" unfortunately only serves to continue to perpetuate the world's idea that Christians are obnoxious, ignorant, money-hungry, uncompassionate hypocrites. Huse doesn't offer anything that might make evolution "collapse", but simply serves to further collapse the relevancy of Christianity to today's world, and serves to make my job even more difficult since I must even more diligently apologize for my brethren when speaking with non-Christians to say "No, Christianity is not like that at all - Jesus actually expects us to think for ourselves, and not blindly follow the people who have a financial interest in keeping us ignorant."

Ackerman's brief work (101 pages) offers insights as to how psychology (of course, there are so MANY schools of psychology; perhaps it is better to say, "psychological theories that do not downplay the preponderance of evil intrinsic within people":)) supports the Biblical perspective of fallen human nature and creation in general.

Chapters include topics not often covered, among them: Normal Unhappiness (worth the price of the book itself), Moral Inconsistencies, and The Reality of Choice.

The chapter about "Normal Unhappiness" claims that most people have an emotional thermostat that maintains a "moderately unhappy" setting. When great things happen, they are high for a while, but then settle down to that setting. When tragedy occurs, they tend to get down for a while, and then work up to it.

As a pastor of 22 years who has dealt with people at all levels (visiting the babies at the hospital, teaching kids, counseling, marrying, visiting in the home, the hospital, and conducting funerals), I will vouch that the author has an authentic view of the realities of human nature. It fits with "what is." Go for it.

Those of you who want to read a book on who started this whole trend in leading Protestants down the path back to Rome should start here. Sanders rejecting the traditional Law-Gospel dichotomy of traditional Protestantism has opted for this newer and novel idea that Paul was not rejecting "salvation by works" but was rejecting "Jewish boundary markers". The practical and theological implications of this view is alarming. Sanders also argues that Second Temple Judaism was not a works-oriented religion, but a "grace-oriented" covenantal religion. Of course, Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Wesleyans, Apostolics, and Seventh-Day Adventists profess to teach "salvation by grace alone" but their whole soteriology is far from that! Read this book, but don't accept the message of the book. The consequences for Christian living can be quite unpleasant.

Sanders eloquently describes 1st century Judaism and the relationship of the Jewish people to the Law of Moses. He explains the meaning of covenant without the usual Christian revisionism. The Jews work to fulfill the law Not to be saved, (a Christian idea), but rather because they are already beneficiaries of the covenant. Paul's problem with the Judaism of his past is not because of anything necessarily wrong with it, but simply because it is not "Christianity". A ready reference for biblical scholars and informed amateurs, this text is not an easy read, but well worth the effort.

Given the present theological dynamics surrounding queries into the nature of God and human destiny, it saddens me to encounter Christian thinkers who are determined (no pun intended)to retreat into the fetid bowels of a tired, stale Reformed Weltanschauung instead of bravely engaging the challenges presented to dogmatics and hermeneutics as we approach the new century. What is lacking in these essays is the belief in a personal deity who can transcend our expectations (cf. Deut. 23 and Isaiah 56) - even our expectations regarding the extent of God's saving activity - and whose mercy can defeat our most entrenched theological prognostications! Viva la grace!

Edited by a long-respected OT theologian and a rising-star young theologian, this volume is a welcome tool for pastors and laypersons perplexed by the growing horde of "evangelicals" seeking to redefine the doctrines of God and salvation. The contributors (Carl Henry, R. Albert Mohler, D. A. Carson, et al) are unabashed in their commitment to a biblically-robust classical evangelical theology. Thornbury's concluding article contributes much to this discussion by joining his critique of "post-conservative" evangelicalism with a self-critical analysis of the theological reductionism found in some sectors of traditionalist evangelicalism. The shelf of every evangelical pastor and church leader should make room for this volume.

This book is an interesting look at the theme of justification, the law, and salvation in the New Testament. Seifrid combines both traditional Protestantism and the New Reformation perspective together in this complex subject. In chapter 1, Seifrid deals with Paul's life, before and after conversion. How and why Paul persecuted the Church and his subsequent conversion to Christianity. Seifrid denies the newer understanding of Paul's opposition and solution to the Jewish problem by arguing that Paul did not see the Jewish problem due to its continuing exile or because of its nationalism through the symbolic elements of the Law. Paul opposed the Jewish "gospel" because it demanded that people do works of the law to gain salvation. Chapter 2 is a short commentary on Romans 1-8. However, I do take exception to Seifrid's contention that Romans 2:13 refers to justification by works at the Final Judgment FOR believers. Chapters 3 and 4 are about Paul's understanding of justification and the Law. I do object to his view that justification is a "renewal/transformation" of creation. However, he does an excellent job proving that the Law is a whole unit, not a tripartite entity. In chapter 5, Seifrid does a good job explaining what "obedience of faith" means. Contrary to some scholars (e.g., Garlington and Schreiner), the phrase does not mean "doing works" but putting faith in the risen Christ for salvation. However, he still believes that final justification for believers will be based on their works (but not as a reflection of saving faith). Chapter 6 is the best chapter of the book. Seifrid goes over the history and fall of physical Israel and why God ordained them to fall. The author's contention is that God ordained the fall of Israel so that He can display His gracious soteric acts from the condemnation of the masses. God's glory and grace can only be manifested in darkness. Justification can only come when there is condemnation. Though there are only a "remnant" of Israelites being saved throughout history, the author makes an excellent case for the full conversion of physical Israel at the Second Coming (pp. 158-168). Chapter 7 is the only chapter I have a problem with. Seifrid's position on justification is more along the views of Schlatter, Kasemann, and Stuhlmacher, and proposes for the "recreational" view of justification rather than the purely forensic (traditional Protestantism). He even criticizes Protestants for making too much of forensic justification and imputation of Christ's righteousness. Therefore, he significantly departs from traditional Protestant soteriology. On page 181, he even states that justification is by works alone (his understanding of James 2:14-26)! Many evangelical Protestants will have a hard time agreeing with Seifrid's view on justification (as a result, Seifrid sides with so-called evangelical scholars like Fuller, Hafemann, Schreiner, Garlington, and Thielman). The first 6 chapters are good; the final chapter is bad. Overall, an interesting look at the Law and Justification.

Jewett attempts to present a coherent theology of mankind as male and female. He makes some advances in his cause and presents some cogent and uncomfortably accurate points. However, the logic of his case occasionally falls short of making the case for a new Christian anthropology. Nevertheless, this book represents a positive step towards a reconceptualization of Christian anthropology. Although this new vision will probably not stand up under scrutiny, there are valid points that should not be ignored because of the flaws in the argument.

Learning about Paul's views by reading only the Bible or a commentary is too much work for most. This book is for some of those people: it provides a single source analysis of some fifty odd themes in Paul's view of Christianity. "Some" because while it aims to readable by the non-scholar, it still lies somewhere between scholarly and popular in readability. Though only 157 pages, the book is difficult to finish because of the wooden, analytical approach taken. It may be most useful as a theological reference on Pauline Christianity.

It struck me overall as consistent with mainline, evangelical Protestantism. While there were no dramatic new insights in the book for me, it did provide some useful insights. For example, Ziesler does a good job of responding to those who say, "Paul unnecessarily complicated the simple teaching of Jesus". Jesus was the message. The author points out that Paul's huge and singular achievement was to "... work out what this meant for the individual, the church, and the universe." "It obviously could not have been done by Jesus himself, because the materials for it were not available until his mission was accomplished." Well, obvious enough once stated. It fell to Paul to play the part of Supreme Court Justice, to work out the messy details of original intent and application in a changed and complicated humanity.

An author's work does not have to be exciting to communicate sound reason and insight, but there is a partnership between the writer and reader in this exchange. In this regard, I felt I was doing more than my share of the work in understanding and completing this book. It reads more like documentation of Paul's thought than it does a dynamic consideration of it. And this is where Ziesler lets Paul down: the passion of Paul is missing. The centrality of suffering in Paul's life is the evidence of Paul's passion, and it does not come through. Why does that matter? It matters because that passion, as much as any other theme, is a major part of Paul's "Pauline Christianity".

Jewett's chapters examine a Christian context of 11 movies of the '80s, offering a fresh look at both the movies and New Testament theology. Clint Eastwood is the basis for a chaper on vengence while racial reconcilation is equated with the Jews and Gentiles in "Grand Canyon." The selection of movies is great in Jewett's book (Star Wars, Amadeus, Ordinary People, and Dead Poet's Society) but the relativism to the scriptures he choses is often weak and farfetched. This is a book to start one thinking about movies already seen, a starting point for discussion as the credits roll, but not great book for independent examination. A fine effort, but at times it just misses.

thinking of returning to the church but at odds with some of the church's teachings. The author brings up virtually all of the controversial points of Catholicism and tells why you don't necessarily have to leave the church even if you disagree with some of the teachings. However, I hated the title, and I objected to the overall tone of the book. It implies that you can justify anything and still consider yourself a Catholic. No, the church isn't perfect, but I think you have to wrestle long and hard with your conscience to still consider yourself a Catholic when you disagree with church teaching . You aren't supposed to feel good about it! This book just doesn't convey that.

Paul Wilkes' "The Good Enough Catholic" is like taking the fundamental theology course in the seminary. The difference here is that Wilkes has a popular writing style that makes the theology accessible to many people. The main point Wilkes makes is that many Catholics,who want to be loyal to their church, but also find some practices and teachings troubling, are trying to find some ways to be "good enough," even though they may not understand or are able to be "perfect" in their practice. The idea of being "good enough" is that sometimes many people have to settle for something that seems less than the ideal of what one should be as a Catholic.

Wilkes treats the fundamental topic in Catholic theology, scriptures, church, sacraments, marriage, priesthood, the papacy, etc. by attempting to find ground somewhere between the extreme positions of absolute loyalty and an attitude of skepticism. He finds much in the Catholic tradition that speaks well of being Catholic. He refers to the moral teachings of the church as the most comprehensive and systemitized than any other religion. He also demonstrates that throughout the church's history there have been different emphases and nuances in how and what the church has taught.

Wilkes' book is positive and honest. He includes quotations from lay people and clergy throughout using opinions that spread the gamut of Catholic thought. He summarizes very clearly some complicated history. He presents some failures of the church along side great successes, showing how the institution of the church can be guided by the Holy Spirit as well as be mislead by the popular culture of the time.

I believe this book to be balanced in its approach. It can be applied easily to RCIA programs as well as other adult education in the church.

As a history teacher and life long Catholic by choice, I approached this book with trepidation. Too many books by Americans rebel against the Church and use the "Cafeteria" method. Wilkes is a devout Catholic by choice. He knows the history of the church and more than just the history, the reasons why. It is a guide for to any thoughtful Catholic wondering about dealing with our modern world, its problems and keeping their faith. I believe it could easily be used as the basis for an adult study class in most parishes in America. Pat Gibson St. Martin de Porres Parish Dripping Springs, Texas

Clinton Arnold is associate professor of the NT at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in California, which is a fairly conservative Protestant institution. In his preface Mr Arnold comments that the Western church has failed to take seriously "the involvement of a figure named Satan and his powers of darkness" and cites the needs of his Asian, African and East European students. As such it is also conceived as an 'answer' to the modernist approach found in Walter Wink's 'Powers' books (i.e. 'Society is the devil').

Personally my main interest was in the first 5 chapters which purport to deal with "First Century Belief", but even here it soon became obvious that Arnold is only interested in cherry-picking from 1st Century evidence that agrees with his own beliefs in literal supernatural evil.

One particularly crass example of this is on p.61 (and again p.98) where he tries to press Isaiah's Lucifer into service as evidence for Satan's fall. This in itself might be forgiveable, but when he then goes on to claim that "this connection was certainly how early Jewish interpreters understood this passage" he passes the limit between being selective with the evidence and downright falsification. Always beware of commentators who say "certainly" and don't give any footnoted evidence. Which early Jewish interpreters saw Satan in Isaiah 14:14? Not Isaiah (14:16). Nor Josephus, nor Philo, not even the demon-packed Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Not Hillel or the early Rabbis. Not Peter who used the same Greek name for Jesus 'Morning Star'. Not the generations of Christians who following the Vulgate version of 1Peter named their children Lucifer. In fact no one, neither Jewish nor Christian, until Tertullian and Origen. And it is Tertullian and Origen who Arnold is following here - not "early Jewish interpreters".

So, in sum, this is a pretty standard book on evil angels, not much different from any others on the 'Spiritual Warfare' shelf at your local Christian bookstore. Which is fine. But Christian writers should resist the temptation to rewrite the Jewish evidence to fit their own variant of a belief in fallen angels.