Well, if you want to see where evangelical theology is going, this is the book to read. Grenz certainly deserves credit for his constant presence on the cutting edge of theological developments. Here he presents his "fresh agenda" for theology in the 21st century. One thing is clear: Grenz is evangelical in name only. The theology he lays out would better be labeled 'post-evangelical' because he rejects almost every sacred tenet of evangelicalism.

Perhaps the central theme is the rejection of what Lindbeck called the 'cognitive-propositionalist' model of theology. Grenz treats doctrine as a 'cultural-linguistic' set of rules that govern community behavior, not as propositions which reflect reality. His doctrine of Scripture suffers accordingly as he reduces it to a mere narrative whose authority derives from its usefulness to the community, not from its truth value. Not surprisingly, he concludes his book by calling for a shift in theology's integrative motif from the traditional 'kingdom concept' to a more communitarian ideal.

Grenz and his compatriots, Clark Pinnock, Donald Bloesch, Gabriel Fackre and Robert Webber will undoubtedly plunge evangelicalism into yet another identity crisis. What will emerge is anyone's guess.

""Who needs theology?" we ask. The answer is clear: All do" (p. 46). Defending this claim pretty much takes up the first half of the book. I must say, the authors do a great job of it too! This is an excellent book for people who find their eyes glazing over at the very word "theology." Grenz and Olsen have written an engaging and elementary book showing why theology is important for every Christian. The authors divide theological thinking into three categories: "dogma, doctrine, & opinion". Dogma includes teaching that is mandatory for one's salvation. Doctrine includes teaching that is considered important but not essential. Finally, opinion is catch-all category for everything that is left. This was a most helpful evaluative tool for this reader. Likewise, the authors note the various types of theology ranging from folk, to lay theology, to ministerial, professional and finally academic theology. Basically, the authors argue that folk theology and academic theology is useless to the church on the one hand and dangerous on the other. The authors also discuss the basic tools of the theology and the contextualization of theology. Finally the authors note that the goal of theology is impact in one's life. A short, easy & helpful book. Highly recommended.

As one who has yet to take any formal training in more academic theology, and having read only a few of the works by the authors discussed in this volume, I come to the subject matter as a novice. And, it is as a novice that I review this work...

There is much to praise in Miller and Grenz' "Introduction to Contemporary Theologies." It is pretty "bottom shelf"--not much intimidating jargon or assuming too much of the audience. The work is written in a very engaging and accessible manner. The footnotes are of some use while not being imposing.

The book also has several weaknesses. It's very brevity forces a great deal of selectivity in what gets discussed. It takes a look at an eclectic assortment of authors. Some are cut and dried theologians...folks like Barth, Bultmann and Pannenberg; others are more popular theologians who wrote for broader audiences...Bonhoeffer being the prime example; others could be described as theologians but also might be considered philosophers or social advocates...Ruether, Gutierrez, and Hick for example.

The authors strive for objectivity by presenting the background and argument of each author and then weaknesses others have found in each author's work. Yet sometimes, it seems that the authors spend more time picking apart the work of certain authors than that of others. The two authors who suffer worst at the their hands are Moltmann and Hick. The discussion of Hick actually degenerates into a debate about tolerance and intolerance.

All other flaws aside, this introduction is seriously in need of some basic bibliographies of the authors discussed. As it stands, if a reader becomes interested in a particular author, then it is left up them as to where to start reading...no help is given.

Each section could also be greatly improved with a discussion of the influence of each author. One who is uninformed in these matters is left with questions. For instance: how did Ruether influence feminism, what is happening with Liberation theology today, and what is the impact of process theology?

All in all, I guess I recommend this book because it has the ability to the reader interested in the theologians discussed. It is by no means comprehensive; it has its definite slants...still, I enjoyed it in spite of itself.

I enjoyed this book. It provides an excellent run-down of the most influental theologies of the 20th Century. However, there is virtually no mention of conservative theologians.

This is a well-written and intriguing book that ultimately fails to deliver on its promise to provide a way to renew the theological center. The book's proposals are based on well-worn phrases that caricature nineteenth- and twentieth-century evangelicalism. Grenz is still pushing the old fallacy we saw as far back as the 1970s in books like Theodore Dwight Bozeman's book on Scottish Common Sense and Baconianism. That fallacy is this: intellectual types like the Princetonians were the only ones who believed in the inerrancy of Scripture. Pietists in the Anabaptist and holiness and other anti-Calvinist movements did not buy this Enlightenment line until the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, when they felt intimidated by the liberals and higher critics into casting their lot with the Fundamentalists, thereby taking shelter in that movement.

The implication of this is that tired old dichotomy that evangelicalism can be divided into doctrinaire and pietist wings. But things are not that uncomplicated and neat. There is an apparently neglected body of research that shows all manner of pietists, Anabaptists, holiness, Arminians, Restorationists, Mormons, etc., etc., who held strong notions of propositional revelation and the inerrancy of the autographs before the the Princetonians had time to have an impact on the intellectual landscape of American Christianity. Grenz's data is very obviously based on secondary sources, and then they are the best known historical works, rather than scholarly articles or monographs that provide counterevidence to the thesis on which his book is based (intellectualism vs. pietism).

I realize that the wisdom he appeals to is quite conventional (e.g., Calvinist Joel Carpenter's assertion that inerrancy is not the kind of category that Wesleyans related to, etc.), yet if he had probed beneath the surface, even reading sermons, periodical articles, and other "non-theological" sources from uneducated pietists in early nineteenth-century American Christianity, he would have found that the dichotomy on which his book is based is a caricature, and he would have had to retool the way he explains the "Princetonian" and "Fundamentalist" reliance on "Enlightenment categories."

One more thing that I found disappointing from a scholar of Grenz's magnitude. In discussing the "Neo-Evangelical movement," he said that "some in the movement" held to the dictation theory of biblical inspiration, yet he didn't go on to cite any sources. This is just irresponsible.

I am sympathetic to some of the proposals Grenz made in the final chapter of his book, particularly about ecclesiology, and I do think we must reckon with postmodernism. Yet, I think we must get our account of just how modernism impacted evangelicalism beyond caricatures and easy dichotomies if we are to understand how to forge a viable evangelical theological witness in a postmodern context.

I write this to encourage you to look beyond the only customer review this far. For example, start by simply clicking above to view all of the editorial reviews of this book. Many good minds have commended it to you.

I'd hate to see you decide not to read this book based on one other person's conclusions. I happen to disagree with him about the 'faulty historical premises', 'fallacies', 'tired old dichotomy' and 'caricatures'. But this is not the place to argue that. If you don't have your mind made up in agreement with that critic about this one, basic premise, then I encourage you to read the book and then decide what you think.

This is a good summary of most of the alternative religions out there. Can also be read page by page like a regular book.

Stanley Grenz aims this work ostensibly at the North American religious "seeker." Structured in seven chapters, each addressing an existential question that Grenz thinks most North Americans (it is a very culture-bound work) ask at one point or another, Grenz attempts to guide the reader through the hodgepodge of contemporary "spiritualities," hopefully ending up within the fold of orthodox evangelical Christianity. The reader who is already well-versed in the culture of evangelical Christianity will find little that is unfamiliar, though Grenz does offer a somewhat nuanced view of the meaning behind Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. Pop culture references abound, in a worthy attempt at contemporary relevance. Curiously--perhaps in an attempt to avoid sounding too scary--the word "sin" is not mentioned once. One unwelcome tendency is Grenz' propensity for making statements--such as calling the Bible the "sourcebook" for Christians, or referring to various beliefs as "erroneous"--without adequately backing them up or elaborating what he means or why he means it.

This is not, by any measure, a bad book, and evangelical Christians ought to find much to celebrate about it. However, it is a bit too brief on some key points. And the title's implicit assertion that Grenz gives voice to the theology and beliefs of all Christians is, to me, rather off-putting.