There is no question that Christian influence in Western culture is waning. Journalist and culture watcher Billy Hallowell writes about the decline and the marginalization of Christian voices in Fault Line: How a Seismic Shift in Culture is Threatening Free Speech and Shaping the Next Generation. Hallowell starts with a review of the data showing that the millennial generation is moving away from religion, specifically faith in Jesus. Then he discusses major areas of culture: TV and movies, popular music, higher education, and the news media, chronicling the shifting values that move our culture farther and farther from Christian norms.
Very little of what Hallowell writes will be a surprise to anyone who is aware of the culture we live in. Some of the best insights were in the first section, regarding the decline of religious belief among the younger generations. He quotes Barna Group researcher David Kinnaman, who said, "there is a 'new moral code' . . . the 'morality of self-fulfillment'" which "has all but replaced Christianity as the culture's moral norm." Moral standards are reduced to what's right for you, not what's right according to an objective standard.
Without objective standards, people eagerly consume whatever lowest-common-denominator offerings the mass media serves up. Cultural norms influence cultural expressions and vice versa, in a spiraling race to the bottom. And if we believe entertainment doesn't influence behavior, we're fooling ourselves. "Young people who watched the greatest amount of sexual content were two times more likely to have sex in the next year." Conversely, "reducing the amount of sexual talk and behavior on television, or the amount of time that adolescents are exposed to them, could appreciably delay the onset of sexual activity." Hallowell doesn't call for censorship. Rather, he points out that in the not-so-distant past, "society was once so repulsed by negative content that Hollywood was forced to change its ways--and chose to do so accordingly." In contrast, Hollywood, in general, now chooses to push the limits of sex and violence more and more every year.
Higher education is a whole separate problem. It is "often a breeding ground for exclusively progressive ideals and values that are masqueraded, paraded, and marketed to young minds as definitive, unadulterated truth." Hallowell makes it clear that he is not against liberals teaching in colleges. But, first of all, he does find it problematic that liberals outnumber conservatives among faculty something like ten to one. More importantly, he gives examples of a tendency to exclude conservative viewpoints in the classroom. The college experience should be about being exposed to a variety of perspectives and learning to evaluate and differentiate points of view, but, as Hallowell describes, it's too often liberal indoctrination.
Finally, Hallowell describes the liberal biases in the news media. Like higher education, newsrooms are weighted heavily on the liberal side. Further, few journalists are practicing Christians, thus have a limited perspective on news about religion. Hallowell provides plenty of evidence and examples, but really all the evidence you need is to tune into the nightly news or pick up the New York Times.
Far from being a right-wing screed, Hallowell calls for balance and freedom of speech. The problem with liberal voices in entertainment, academia, and the media is not that they are liberal, it's that they often drown out and actively inhibit and exclude conservative voices. He writes, "if Christians and conservatives don't become professors, reporters, cameramen, producers, actors, and studio heads, then having substantial influence in the realms of entertainment, media, and higher education is a virtual impossibility." There are barriers in place, to be sure, but Christians must not back down from making their voices heard. Following Josh McDowell, Hallowell writes that Christians must be informed, be rational and sound in our positions, live out our faith with integrity, and listen and interact with others. Cultural fault lines are clear to all of us; perhaps Christians can deepen our participation in culture and bring people together.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!
Friday, March 10, 2017
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Tea with Hezbollah, by Ted Dekker and Carl Medearis
In Tea with Hezbollah: Sitting at the Enemies' Table, Our Journey Through the Middle East, novelist Ted Dekker and writer Carl Medearis write of their encounters with a variety of individuals whom most Americans would consider enemies of the United States and of Christianity. The book consists of three interwoven parts: their travelogue, transcripts of their interviews, and a fictional story about an American woman who travels to Lebanon to find her biological father.
The travelogue is the best part of the book. Dekker is the newbie, with no experience traveling in the Middle East. Medearis has lived much of his life in the Middle East, and is an expert on Arab-American and Muslim-Christian relations. As they maneuver through border crossings, travel delays, armed confrontations, and cab rides from hell, it's fun to read their adventures and their contrasting reactions to each experience.
I was indifferent about the story of the American woman. Dekker's an experienced story teller, but the way he tells this story, interspersed among the other parts of the book, trying to make it sound like a real woman's experience, keeps it on that unsteady threshold between fiction and non-fiction, never teetering all the way into a solid, readable story.
What should be the most substantial and important part of the book, the interviews with leaders of Hezbollah and Hammas, Osama bin Laden's brothers, and Muslim clergymen, turns out to be unenlightening. Dekker says he wants the interviews to reveal their personal side, like a People magazine profile. He does that, to an extent, drawing out answers to questions like "When is the last time you cried?" or "What hobbies do you have?"
Dekker and Medearis want to follow Jesus' teaching that we should love our enemies, and that if we don't know our enemies, we can't love them. I want the same, but I struggle with my Western, American, Christian perception. Even acknowledging that, I had a hard time reading some of the outright lies and distortions that Dekker and Medearis's interview subjects said. The authors did not challenge them or engage in debate. I think the book would have been much more valuable had it engaged some of the real controversies between Muslims and Christians.
But that's not the point of the book, and not Dekker and Medearis's goal. Based on their interviews, I gather that Muslims, even those who provide intellectual, spiritual, and material ammunition for deadly attacks, enjoy movies, play with their grandchildren, and laugh at funny jokes. I could have surmised that without traveling to the Middle East. Also, based on the overall tone of the book, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all equally responsible for violence in the Middle East. I'm not a Middle East expert, but I have a feeling some of those Christians who have been beheaded on video would object. No group is perfect, but it sure seems like the perpetrators of violence tend, more often than not, to be Muslims. But what do I know, I get my information from the Zionist-controlled media.
The travelogue is the best part of the book. Dekker is the newbie, with no experience traveling in the Middle East. Medearis has lived much of his life in the Middle East, and is an expert on Arab-American and Muslim-Christian relations. As they maneuver through border crossings, travel delays, armed confrontations, and cab rides from hell, it's fun to read their adventures and their contrasting reactions to each experience.
I was indifferent about the story of the American woman. Dekker's an experienced story teller, but the way he tells this story, interspersed among the other parts of the book, trying to make it sound like a real woman's experience, keeps it on that unsteady threshold between fiction and non-fiction, never teetering all the way into a solid, readable story.
What should be the most substantial and important part of the book, the interviews with leaders of Hezbollah and Hammas, Osama bin Laden's brothers, and Muslim clergymen, turns out to be unenlightening. Dekker says he wants the interviews to reveal their personal side, like a People magazine profile. He does that, to an extent, drawing out answers to questions like "When is the last time you cried?" or "What hobbies do you have?"
Dekker and Medearis want to follow Jesus' teaching that we should love our enemies, and that if we don't know our enemies, we can't love them. I want the same, but I struggle with my Western, American, Christian perception. Even acknowledging that, I had a hard time reading some of the outright lies and distortions that Dekker and Medearis's interview subjects said. The authors did not challenge them or engage in debate. I think the book would have been much more valuable had it engaged some of the real controversies between Muslims and Christians.
But that's not the point of the book, and not Dekker and Medearis's goal. Based on their interviews, I gather that Muslims, even those who provide intellectual, spiritual, and material ammunition for deadly attacks, enjoy movies, play with their grandchildren, and laugh at funny jokes. I could have surmised that without traveling to the Middle East. Also, based on the overall tone of the book, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all equally responsible for violence in the Middle East. I'm not a Middle East expert, but I have a feeling some of those Christians who have been beheaded on video would object. No group is perfect, but it sure seems like the perpetrators of violence tend, more often than not, to be Muslims. But what do I know, I get my information from the Zionist-controlled media.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
The Coming Apostasy, by Mark Hitchcock and Jeff Kinley
Apostasy. It's a strong word. Mark Hitchcock and Jeff Kinley take it very seriously. In The Coming Apostasy: Exposing the Sabotage of Christianity from Within, they take on apostasy in the contemporary church.
Hitchcock and Kinely quote John Calvin's definition of apostasy as "a treacherous departure from God, not on the part of one person or a few individuals, but such as would spread far among a wide circle of people." So apostasy is not just theological error, but the wide spread of theological error. And that, they right, is a big problem today, when we witness a "sabotage aimed at the authority and sufficiency of the Bible and targeting the exclusivity of Jesus as the only way to God."
The make an effective case that many who today profess Christianity "drift in an age of unprecedented pseudo-Christian thought." They "profess faith but rebel or fall away from it." One's feelings become more important than biblical revelation. The gospel becomes watered down. "There is much talk about relationship but little talk about repentence. . . . celebration without sacrifice . . . . high value placed on friendship but not much emphasis on lordship." (Of course, in the next chapter, they write, "salvation is all about a relationship with Jesus Christ.")
The hard thing about apostasy is identifying and confronting it with grace. They give a few concrete examples, but mostly from fringe evangelical writers (e.g., Rob Bell, Rachel Held Evans). They speak broadly against megachurch pastors and liberal denominations. Their most convincing arguments deal with moral apostasy. In a chapter dedicated to the current debate over homosexuality, they draw a bright line in favor of the historic understanding that the Bible and the teachings of Jesus leave no room for approval of homosexual behavior. In fact, approval is arguably greater than the sin itself. So does this one issue make a church apostate? Does any one issues make a church apostate?
Hitchcock and Kinley call the church to remain true to biblical faith. Yes, and amen! But I have been on the wrong end of apostate witch hunts, when my seminary became bitterly divided. The more conservative faction came after the perceived liberal professors teaching in the seminary, sending students into classes as spies and poring over every word written or spoken by the professors. In my opinion, none of them was even close to apostate. I hate to see a desire for faithful upholding of the Bible to devolve into finger pointing and narrowing of the circle of faith.
Yes, we have to continually examine our hearts and study the scripture, remaining faithful to God and his word. But there is room for disagreement in the church. The landscape is littered with churches and denominations that are convinced that everyone not in their little circle is apostate and only their congregation or denomination truly understands and practices the Bible's teaching.
The Coming Apostasy paints a bigger picture, and rightly warns that widespread apostasy is a sign of the end times. But they don't convincingly draw that line. How much error is tolerable? What are the non-negotiables that move you from mild disagreement to apostate? Can anyone answer that question and draw that line? It almost feels like an "I know it when I see it" argument. In the meantime, love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and strength. Maranatha.
Thanks to Edelweiss and the publisher for complimentary electronic review copy!
Hitchcock and Kinely quote John Calvin's definition of apostasy as "a treacherous departure from God, not on the part of one person or a few individuals, but such as would spread far among a wide circle of people." So apostasy is not just theological error, but the wide spread of theological error. And that, they right, is a big problem today, when we witness a "sabotage aimed at the authority and sufficiency of the Bible and targeting the exclusivity of Jesus as the only way to God."
The make an effective case that many who today profess Christianity "drift in an age of unprecedented pseudo-Christian thought." They "profess faith but rebel or fall away from it." One's feelings become more important than biblical revelation. The gospel becomes watered down. "There is much talk about relationship but little talk about repentence. . . . celebration without sacrifice . . . . high value placed on friendship but not much emphasis on lordship." (Of course, in the next chapter, they write, "salvation is all about a relationship with Jesus Christ.")
The hard thing about apostasy is identifying and confronting it with grace. They give a few concrete examples, but mostly from fringe evangelical writers (e.g., Rob Bell, Rachel Held Evans). They speak broadly against megachurch pastors and liberal denominations. Their most convincing arguments deal with moral apostasy. In a chapter dedicated to the current debate over homosexuality, they draw a bright line in favor of the historic understanding that the Bible and the teachings of Jesus leave no room for approval of homosexual behavior. In fact, approval is arguably greater than the sin itself. So does this one issue make a church apostate? Does any one issues make a church apostate?
Hitchcock and Kinley call the church to remain true to biblical faith. Yes, and amen! But I have been on the wrong end of apostate witch hunts, when my seminary became bitterly divided. The more conservative faction came after the perceived liberal professors teaching in the seminary, sending students into classes as spies and poring over every word written or spoken by the professors. In my opinion, none of them was even close to apostate. I hate to see a desire for faithful upholding of the Bible to devolve into finger pointing and narrowing of the circle of faith.
Yes, we have to continually examine our hearts and study the scripture, remaining faithful to God and his word. But there is room for disagreement in the church. The landscape is littered with churches and denominations that are convinced that everyone not in their little circle is apostate and only their congregation or denomination truly understands and practices the Bible's teaching.
The Coming Apostasy paints a bigger picture, and rightly warns that widespread apostasy is a sign of the end times. But they don't convincingly draw that line. How much error is tolerable? What are the non-negotiables that move you from mild disagreement to apostate? Can anyone answer that question and draw that line? It almost feels like an "I know it when I see it" argument. In the meantime, love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and strength. Maranatha.
Thanks to Edelweiss and the publisher for complimentary electronic review copy!
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
What Slaveholders Think, by Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick
Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick's new book has the wrong title. Rather than What Slaveholders Think: How Contemporary Perpetrators Rationalize What They Do, he should have called it something like The Decline of Bonded Labor in India's Changing Society. The main focus of the book is the practice of bonded labor in India. A long-held practice, it is in decline and has been severely curtailed through legal means and societal pressure. Choi-Fitzpatrick has interviewed many farmers and laborers to get a sense of this shift in attitudes.
On that count, What Slaveholders Think is an interesting study. It's amusing and pathetic to hear the landowners' nostalgia for the way things used to be. They speak of their laborers as family and of their paternalistic concern for their laborers. But things are changing. One farmer complains, "When people used to listen to us, life was good. We were running our lives very well. But now, since they're not listening to us, even we hesitate to call them for work, and they hesitate to come to us for work." I was reminded of nostalgia in the American south for the old days on the plantation.
The reality of bonded labor is probably darker than what Choi-Fitzpatrick portrays, reliant as he is on the farmers' perspectives. But workers now are so secure in their rights that if a farmer yells at them, they might go to the authorities to complain about their treatment, to the farmers' chagrin. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the farmers, who perpetuate a system which holds the laborers in perpetual debt. But it is true that they are victims, too, in a way. Like other parts of the world, large-scale corporate farms are taking over. Small farmers can't afford the large equipment required, and are increasingly unable to use the cheap manual labor they had in their indentured servants.
When I think of slavery, I think of chattel slavery in the United States, in which people were bought and sold or kidnapped and forced to work. Or I think of modern day sex trafficking, in which people are kidnapped or otherwise unwillingly forced into sex work. As Choi-Fitzpatrick writes, though, these represent only a slice of modern-day slavery. He states that "around half of the world's slaves are held in debt bondage in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh." That's "ten to twenty million people living in bonded labor." Although there have been great strides, both due to activism and the realities of agricultural markets, in reducing debt slavery, "bonded labor is not considered to be a problem by Indian society at large."
Choi-Fitzpatrick does a service to shed light on bonded labor in South Asia. As he learns, the farmers and others who use bonded labor are human, not the face of evil. Yet the perpetuation of the unjust system allows evil to keep a foothold. As India becomes more modernized and urbanized, those who work as bonded laborers will continue to seek a way out, but a cultural shift will have to occur to truly end the practice.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!
On that count, What Slaveholders Think is an interesting study. It's amusing and pathetic to hear the landowners' nostalgia for the way things used to be. They speak of their laborers as family and of their paternalistic concern for their laborers. But things are changing. One farmer complains, "When people used to listen to us, life was good. We were running our lives very well. But now, since they're not listening to us, even we hesitate to call them for work, and they hesitate to come to us for work." I was reminded of nostalgia in the American south for the old days on the plantation.
The reality of bonded labor is probably darker than what Choi-Fitzpatrick portrays, reliant as he is on the farmers' perspectives. But workers now are so secure in their rights that if a farmer yells at them, they might go to the authorities to complain about their treatment, to the farmers' chagrin. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the farmers, who perpetuate a system which holds the laborers in perpetual debt. But it is true that they are victims, too, in a way. Like other parts of the world, large-scale corporate farms are taking over. Small farmers can't afford the large equipment required, and are increasingly unable to use the cheap manual labor they had in their indentured servants.
When I think of slavery, I think of chattel slavery in the United States, in which people were bought and sold or kidnapped and forced to work. Or I think of modern day sex trafficking, in which people are kidnapped or otherwise unwillingly forced into sex work. As Choi-Fitzpatrick writes, though, these represent only a slice of modern-day slavery. He states that "around half of the world's slaves are held in debt bondage in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh." That's "ten to twenty million people living in bonded labor." Although there have been great strides, both due to activism and the realities of agricultural markets, in reducing debt slavery, "bonded labor is not considered to be a problem by Indian society at large."
Choi-Fitzpatrick does a service to shed light on bonded labor in South Asia. As he learns, the farmers and others who use bonded labor are human, not the face of evil. Yet the perpetuation of the unjust system allows evil to keep a foothold. As India becomes more modernized and urbanized, those who work as bonded laborers will continue to seek a way out, but a cultural shift will have to occur to truly end the practice.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!
Monday, March 6, 2017
How the Hell Did This Happen?, by P.J. O'Rourke
No political writer living is as funny or as insightful as P.J. O'Rourke. With great anticipation I picked up his reflections on the recent presidential election, How the Hell Did This Happen?: The Election of 2016, in which he asks the question all of us asked throughout the debacle of an election season. As expected, he is hilarious, and he has some serious moments of insight. But given the amount of ridiculous material he had to work with, I don't feel like he capitalized sufficiently on the opportunities for skewering Trump and Clinton.
The Democrats presented the electorate with Hillary Clinton. This fits the trend started with the election of Obama. "The Democrats are determined to elect 'the first ______ American president.' African-American, Woman, Native American, Latino, Gay. They've checked off No. 1 and are determined to do down the list in order of historical victimhood." The GOP just wanted someone who could win. They were "in no damn mood for competent, experienced politicians with broad popular appeal" like Kasich or O'Malley. And even though Trump, in many ways, didn't fit in the GOP, he proved "you can't get kicked out of an American political party no matter what you say or do."
Where O'Rourke really shines is boiling down political philosophies. For example, his summary of America's "two vague political tendencies." "One tendency is to favor a larger, more powerful government to make things better. The other tendency is to favor a smaller, more limited government to make things less worse." On Trump and Clinton specifically, neither will lower taxes: "Elect Hillary, and we'll get obvious higher taxes--on our incomes, investments, and businesses. Elect Trump, and we'll get hidden higher taxes--in the form of worthless U.S. dollars being printed to fund the deficit and debt." In both cases, the "exact answer to the question of how much money would be required to fulfill campaign promises is that there isn't that much money in the world." Truth.
One platform issue that divides the parties and the candidates is the approach to poverty. "Democratic politicians care so much about poverty that--far from warring on it--they have become a kind of conservationist group, devoted to preserving it forever. Democrats are the Sierra Club of Poverty." That's a classic O'Rourke line! In a more specific policy proposal of sorts, O'Rourke writes, "Giving poor people money is a simple and straightforward way to eliminate poverty. But the government is spending 46 percent more money to eliminate poverty than it would cost to eliminate poverty by giving poor people money." Makes you wonder. . . .
O'Rourke makes clear throughout How the Hell Did This Happen? that he thought little of both candidates (and their primary contenders didn't do much better!). He finally gave his endorsement to Hillary, albeit reluctantly. O'Rourke sees Hillary like The Grinch, a la Dr. Seuss: "You're a smug one, Hillary, . . . you're cuddly as a cactus, . . . you're a limousine liberal, Hillary, your heart's an empty hole, . . . I endorse you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!"
How the Hell Did This Happen? is an equal-opportunity offender. O'Rourke doesn't really have much nice to say about any of the candidates. However, he either overlooks some of the worst offenses and accusations of the campaign, or treats them very lightly. It's almost like he felt that he knew he would alienate partisans on both sides, but didn't want to do so irrevocably and drastically. This is a fun read and valuable keepsake of memories of Election 2016.
Thanks to Edelweiss and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!
The Democrats presented the electorate with Hillary Clinton. This fits the trend started with the election of Obama. "The Democrats are determined to elect 'the first ______ American president.' African-American, Woman, Native American, Latino, Gay. They've checked off No. 1 and are determined to do down the list in order of historical victimhood." The GOP just wanted someone who could win. They were "in no damn mood for competent, experienced politicians with broad popular appeal" like Kasich or O'Malley. And even though Trump, in many ways, didn't fit in the GOP, he proved "you can't get kicked out of an American political party no matter what you say or do."
Where O'Rourke really shines is boiling down political philosophies. For example, his summary of America's "two vague political tendencies." "One tendency is to favor a larger, more powerful government to make things better. The other tendency is to favor a smaller, more limited government to make things less worse." On Trump and Clinton specifically, neither will lower taxes: "Elect Hillary, and we'll get obvious higher taxes--on our incomes, investments, and businesses. Elect Trump, and we'll get hidden higher taxes--in the form of worthless U.S. dollars being printed to fund the deficit and debt." In both cases, the "exact answer to the question of how much money would be required to fulfill campaign promises is that there isn't that much money in the world." Truth.
One platform issue that divides the parties and the candidates is the approach to poverty. "Democratic politicians care so much about poverty that--far from warring on it--they have become a kind of conservationist group, devoted to preserving it forever. Democrats are the Sierra Club of Poverty." That's a classic O'Rourke line! In a more specific policy proposal of sorts, O'Rourke writes, "Giving poor people money is a simple and straightforward way to eliminate poverty. But the government is spending 46 percent more money to eliminate poverty than it would cost to eliminate poverty by giving poor people money." Makes you wonder. . . .
O'Rourke makes clear throughout How the Hell Did This Happen? that he thought little of both candidates (and their primary contenders didn't do much better!). He finally gave his endorsement to Hillary, albeit reluctantly. O'Rourke sees Hillary like The Grinch, a la Dr. Seuss: "You're a smug one, Hillary, . . . you're cuddly as a cactus, . . . you're a limousine liberal, Hillary, your heart's an empty hole, . . . I endorse you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!"
How the Hell Did This Happen? is an equal-opportunity offender. O'Rourke doesn't really have much nice to say about any of the candidates. However, he either overlooks some of the worst offenses and accusations of the campaign, or treats them very lightly. It's almost like he felt that he knew he would alienate partisans on both sides, but didn't want to do so irrevocably and drastically. This is a fun read and valuable keepsake of memories of Election 2016.
Thanks to Edelweiss and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!
Sunday, March 5, 2017
I Like, I Don't Like, by Anna Baccelliere, illustrated by Ale + Ale
I Like, I Don't Like is one of the more sobering children's books I've ever seen. Author Anna Baccellierre contrasts Western kids' preferences with the reality of child labor around the world. You like to eat rice? He doesn't like working in the rice paddy. You like trying on your mom's many shoes? She doesn't like working at a shoe shine stand. You like listening to music? He doesn't like having to play music for tips to support his family. And the starkest contrast of all: You like playing. He asks, "What is playing?"
I really love Ale + Ale's collage-like illustrations. (This is the artistic team of Alessandro Lecis and Alessandra Panzeri.) They find the perfect balance between the playfulness of some kids and the life of labor of others.
It's never too early for Western kids to get some perspective on their place in the world. In the U.S., a kid is considered poor if his mom buys his clothes at the second-hand store. (I know, that's a gross over-simplification, but still. . . .) If your child has a roof over his head, goes to school every day, and only works so he can have a little cash for video games or to go out with friends, he needs to know that some kids have to work to support their families. I Like, I Don't Like is a great start to introduce young children to the concept of child labor and the privilege of growing up in relative wealth.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!
I really love Ale + Ale's collage-like illustrations. (This is the artistic team of Alessandro Lecis and Alessandra Panzeri.) They find the perfect balance between the playfulness of some kids and the life of labor of others.
It's never too early for Western kids to get some perspective on their place in the world. In the U.S., a kid is considered poor if his mom buys his clothes at the second-hand store. (I know, that's a gross over-simplification, but still. . . .) If your child has a roof over his head, goes to school every day, and only works so he can have a little cash for video games or to go out with friends, he needs to know that some kids have to work to support their families. I Like, I Don't Like is a great start to introduce young children to the concept of child labor and the privilege of growing up in relative wealth.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!
Saturday, March 4, 2017
When God Made You, by Matthew Paul Turner, illustrated by David Catrow
Matthew Paul Turner has written some light-hearted but theologically sound and culturally engaging books for adults. His newest book teaches an important lesson, that you were made exactly the way God meant for you to be made! When God Made You follows an African-American girl through her day, as she explores her neighborhood and lets her imagination take flight. David Catrow's illustrations become more vividly colorful and wildly imaginative as the book progresses, perfectly paired with Turner's whimsical verse.
The back cover says this is for kids 3-8. That sounds about right. It's a good bed time or story time book which will bear repeated readings. The pictures are detailed and complex enough that curious eyes will find something new every time they read it.
Like any good kids book, the message of When God Made You resonates with all of us, not just the ostensible target audience. I am unique. I am loved. I carry the imago dei. I am a vessel to bring God's love to others. The message is simple, powerful, universal, and never to be forgotten.
Thanks to Blogging for Books and the publisher for the complimentary review copy!
Like any good kids book, the message of When God Made You resonates with all of us, not just the ostensible target audience. I am unique. I am loved. I carry the imago dei. I am a vessel to bring God's love to others. The message is simple, powerful, universal, and never to be forgotten.
Thanks to Blogging for Books and the publisher for the complimentary review copy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)