This winter break I went on a Shakespeare buying spree, and this book is one of the fine gems I found. A large, but fascinating book, this work of great scholarship and excitement takes the reader on a whirlwind tour of Shakespeare, even into rather obscure corners of his works (Trollius and Cressida, Timon of Athens). This book is a must read for any would be deep thinker about Shakespeare.

Shakespeare as Political Thinker is a must for everyone interested in the political thought of William Shakespeare. This reprint will finally allow new comers to become familair with a commonsensical approach to Shakespeare's plays. The introductory chapter by John Alvis is worth the price. Perhaps the best Shakespearean critic alive, Alvis has an uncanny ability to show Shakespeare's moral seriousness without making the bard an unquestioning adherent to any political school or theological creed. Many of the essays that follow are also well done: Jaffa's chapter on Shakespeare's entire corpus, Laurence Berns' meditation on Lear etc.

The second printing of Shakespeare as Political Thinker gives hope to those interested in relearning ancient wisdom and pays tribute to its inspiration, Shakespeare's Politics (Allan Bloom).

Cowan was raised as the most upper-class of Jews; he even attended an elite, priveleged high school out East where he was required to go to Episcopalian services. This is the story of how he slowly left that world and discovered his Jewish roots. Cowan writes from the heart, expressing all his emotions about his journey, including his fears. I am from an extremely traditional Jewish background, and was very impressed at his openness to first learning about something that he really knew little about, and then gradually beginning to practice it. (One of my favorite parts of the book is when he puts on tefillin, a morning ritual for Orthodox Jewish men). In addition, this is also a story about his wife. Raised as a Protestant, she comes to share his love for his new-found faith. A unique book. It is a shame that Cowan passed away so young; a sequel would have been great.

This book is one in Zondervan's Counterpoints Series, which presents the view of various (mostly) Evangelical writers on theological subjects. This book is sorely needed because Evangelical apologists have had a history of writing critically and polemically of one another (one thinks of the Clark/Van Til debate), with the result of the layman having a difficult time deciding among the various positions.

The problem with this book is either that the writers are too timid or are more irenic than their label would indicate. There are three authors who present variations on the traditional approach: the classical method (Craig), the evidential method (Habermas), and the cumulative case method (Feinberg). These approaches are quite similar, although some differences do arise. When the reader gets to John Frame's presuppositional method, he expects to get a starkly different approach. After all, Van Til was notorious for attacking "traditional" apologetics as "Roman Catholic" or "Arminian." Well, Frame tells us that he agrees with most of what Craig writes. The final writer, Kelly James Clark (who represents the "Reformed epistemological method"), says the same thing.

Perhaps the editor could have selected a follower of Gordon Clark (a rationalist who denied the proofs of God's existence) or a fideist to present a contrasting apologetic method.

Few books have seriously tackled apologetic method, or how Christianity should be defended rationally. The last book I know of that surveyed options in this regard was Gordon Lewis, "Testing Christianity's Truth Claims" (Moody Press, 1976; republished by University Press of America).

This book presents five different approaches, each represented by one of its exponents: Classical Apologetics (William Lane Craig), Evidentialism (Gary Habermas), Culumulative Case Method (Paul Feinberg), Presuppositionalism (John Frame), and Reformed Epistemology (Kelly James Clark).

Much ground is covered concerning the Bible's approach to apologetics, where apologetic arguments should begin, how certain arguments for Christianity are, and so on. I will simply make a few comments.

The presentations by Craig and Habermas are the most worthwhile because they are the most intellectual rigorous and well-documented. They also tend to agree with each on most things and reinforce each others views. While I tend to favor a cumulative case method (influenced by E.J. Carnell and Francis Schaeffer, but with more appreciation for natural theology), Feinberg's comments are the weakest by far. He never mentions the leading exponent of this view in our generation (Carnell) nor Carnell's apt and well-published student (and my esteemed colleague), Dr. Gordon Lewis. Not one word about either one! His comments are brief, his documentation is thin, and he fails to advance anything very creative or helpful, I'm afraid. A better person should have been chosen, such as Gordon Lewis. Frame gives his "kinder, gentler" version of Cornelius Van Til, which still suffers from the same kinds of problems--most notably the fallacy of begging the question in favor of Christianity. Nevertheless, the notion of a "transcendental argument" for theism is a good one, but it should not carry all the weight of apologetics. Clark's material is philosophically well-informed (one would expect this of a student of Alvin Plantinga!), but apologetically timid. Clark almost sounds like a skeptic at times.

A few bones more bones to pick. The editor refers to Francis Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist. This is false; he was a verificationist with more in common with Carnell than with Van Til. Gordon Lewis's fine essay on Schaeffer's apologetic method in "Reflections on Francis Schaeffer" makes this very clear. None of the writers address the great apologetic resources found in Blaise Pascal. I also found at least two grammatical errors.

Nevertheless, as a professor of philosophy at a theological seminary who teaches apologetics, I found this volume very helpful and useful. But let's not get so involved in methodological concerns that we fail to go out in the world and defend our Christian faith as objectively true, existentially vital, and rationally compelling (Jude 3)!

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Denver Seminary

I got my copy from Amazon a few weeks ago and the day I received it I could not put it down. This is a wonderful text. The book covers five various apologetic methods from five well known scholars who promulgate and defend each of their own views. Moreover, once each of these five scholars have written why they use a particular method, the other four have an opportunity to respond. The responses are by far the best part of the book. However, the actual essays that cover the five methods give the reader a better grasp on that particular method. This book is helpful in several ways. First, it provides the reader a fairly exhaustive treatment of each of the various apologetic methods. Second, it allows the reader to actually see what proponents of the each of the various methods are saying about each of the other methods. Third, it includes some of the best, if not the best, scholars in each of the various methodologies covered. The contributors include, William Lane Craig (Classical Method), Gary R. Habermas (Evidential Method), Kelly James Clark (Reformed Epistemological Method), Paul D. Feinberg (Cumulative Method), and John M. Frame (Presuppositional Method). The only downside to the book that I can see is the idea that some may think that their particular method was not accurately covered by the scholar at hand. In other words, the Presuppositionalists may wonder why John Frame was used instead of someone else, etc. However, I believe that each method was given a fair assessment and the initial essays with the responses will make the book a wonderful reference for many years to come.

The first part of the book deals with the author's experience working in the Black ghetto. The second part deals with the author's experience working overseas in the Peace Corps.

At the time I read this book, I wasn't interested in the Black ghetto, but was interested in the Peace Corps. Consequently, I wasn't interested in the first part but was interested in the second part. The author contends that both experiences contributed to his evolving from a national citizen to a world citizen. But I wasn't interested in that; I was interested in the Peace Corps.

Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book for a person interested in foreign service.

This book was written about a marriage that started in the sixties. It is simply out-of-touch with the realities of our multicultural world. Those of us who were raised to value diversity won't have much use for the lessons imparted by this books' authors. It simply isn't relevant to couples in the twenty-first century. And thank goodness for that. Read Mary-Helene Rosenbaum's "Celebrating our Differences" instead.

This book was full of biases and faulty assumptions. I am sorry that I wasted my time and money on it. As other reviewers have remarked, the Cowans (the Christian wife of whom converted to her husband's faith) clearly have an agenda- to convince non-Jews that they must convert to their partner's faith and to convince Jews that if their gentile partner won't give in and stop being so goyish, the marriage is doomed. Bull hockey, I say! And I know whereof I speak, being the gentile partner in a long-term interfaith relationship, with a partner whose parents are Jewish and Christian too, successfully married for 30 years!

One assumption the Cowans make is that there are two types of people- Jews and Christians. Based on this assumption, they go on for pages about the history of Christians persecuting Jews and completely ignore the fact that there is more than one combination possible for an intermarriage. I am a gentile, but not a Christian, and in my acquaintance there is a Jewish/Buddhist couple, a Jewish/Wiccan couple and many other such pairs. This oversight made the book even less useful than it was to begin with.

There were several passages in the book that were so mean and insensitive that they almost made me cry! For instance, the way in one of their seminars they allow the Jewish participants to berate a Christian woman endlessly for wanting a Christmas tree (and she came from a broken home where Christmas was the only happy time!). There is much on how she must be sensitive to her husband's feelings about Christian persecution/being a minority, but what about her? She has feelings too, as do all us other gentiles in intermarriages! Eventually she was pressured into not only giving up the tree but also converting.

I mean no disrespect to those who choose to convert- I considered the same at one point. But I do object to books such as this one which is blatantly insensitive and mean to Christian partners. I would be just as mad if it was this cruel to Jewish partners, because marriages should be based on kindness, fairness, and honesty, not coercion, guilt, and cruelty!

The book is very informative, as the authors describe their personal experiences with interfaith relationships. They were themselves an interfaith couple and they recount how they dealt with the problems that eventually arose in their relationship and how they came to work with other couples in the same situation. Great interviews with other couples and with children of interfaith relationship describing their own experiences. Definitely a MUST READ!!