Customer Reviews:
Probably the Best Treatise to Date.......2005-02-01
Dr. Robert Price is the most significant and accredited scholar to present the Christ Myth thesis to date. His two Ph.D.'s are in systematic theology and New Testament studies respectively; which makes him more than qualified to comment on the historicity of the Jesus Christ character.
Although his presentation is not perfect, it is quite probably the best published thus far. His two works (Deconstructing Jesus, and the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man) have served to anchor the legitimacy of the Christ Myth thesis, despite the debaucheries committed against it by self stylized scholars such as Acharya S.
The Christ Myth thesis is quite plausible and is backed by a large body of historical, anthropological, and archaeological data, as well as a (slowly) growing body of academia. Unfortunately the efforts of legitimate scholars like Dr. Price are greatly undermined by an unfortunate paradigm of popular fiction by authors such as Dan Brown and Acharya S. If you are interested in educating yourself about the mythological foundations of Judaism and Christianity, stick to Dr. Price, Dr. Hoffmann, Dr. Pagels, Dr. Wells, Dr. Leeming, and Earl Doherty for the time being.
Request for the historical Jesus.......2004-12-17
In the vein of Burton Mack's _Who wrote the Old Testament?_ Robert Price's strong dose of Biblical Criticism pursues the phantom to deeper depths, resulting in something close to final skepticism about the Christ figure. The contructivist literature here that Price exposes is confusing in the extreme to anyone in the mainstream churches who is not a determined researcher or student of the literature. So many centuries after Spinoza, and the original deconstructions of Bauer of the Left Hegelians the disinformation game goes on and on, and on.
A REAL SNORE FEST!.......2003-10-30
It isn't that Robert Price hasn't studied the subject of Christian origins--he certainly has, and he's even been a born-again Christian. It isn't that he doesn't pontificate about the theories of this scholar and that apologist. That he surely does (the book seems to be a paean to Burton Mack). Price even makes a definitive statement now and again. But much of this book is not only boring--obviously designed to please his already-convinced peers of his immense erudition--but it goes nowhere, as Price is wishy-washy about his conclusions: "I'm not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that the origin is pure myth..." (p. 85) Blah, blah, blah. Price then proceeds to criticize the "Old Christ-Myth theorists," who, in fact, were not fence-sitters but who took a stand that sometimes became a bit wild but was never dull.
One area where this book is a bit more audacious than others in its genre is the section outlining other savior gods. Even though the perspective that the ancients--pagans and Jews alike--possessed practically every concept in Christianity, including the characteristics of its alleged founder, many modern scholars are simply terrified to touch the material brought to light in the past few centuries that reveal such facts of unoriginality through comparative religion. In other words, Jesus ain't original--he's a rehash himself of gods who already existed. At least Price has the courage to discuss these myths regarding dying-and-rising savior gods such as Baal, Tammuz, Osiris, Attis and Dionysus. Price reaches his zenith when he says, "It is very hard not to see extensive and basic similarities between these religions and the Christian religion. But somehow Christian scholars have managed not to see it, and this, one must suspect, for dogmatic reasons." (p. 88)
Also, Price displays some originality in his discussion of "ancient romances" and their correspondences to the gospel fable. ("The Cruci-fiction?") Price names a number of such texts and shows that their major plotlines are similar and "prefigure" that of the gospel fable as well. In the end, the Jesus myth could be considered another one of these "ancient romances," although it is not nearly as intriguing or edifying. In any case, Price highlights some "new" primary sources that reveal the banality of the Christian myth.
Unfortunately, despite some strengths the book is poorly organized and, again, appears to have been written for those who already know most of what is presented. It is certainly not for the lay public and will have little impact on the public in the long run.
If you are really interested in Christian origins, this book is not a bad read. But there are far better and more exciting ways to learn about Christianity and its alleged founder. The most readable of these is "The Christ Conspiracy" by Acharya S, who holds a number of the same views as Price but is able to present them in a far more exciting manner. Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle" is a well-written and necessary examination but it still can't reach the public like "The Christ Conspiracy." "The Jesus Mysteries" contains much of the same information found in Christ Conspiracy, but it is rubbery in its conclusions and focuses on spiritual experiences. Leidner's "Fabrication of the Christ Myth" is a pretty good work, with some interesting and unusual ideas. Price's "Deconstructing Jesus," on the other hand, contains little original and is mostly a rehash of other scholars' tedious and nitpicking opinions.
When rationalists lose their way.......2003-04-09
How do we know Jesus existed? Obviously, the four gospels and Paul's letters mention him, but since they are full of amazing miracles, we have to consider the possibility that they are not wholly reliable. Fortunately for scholars, Jesus' existence is independently verified from the brief mention of him and his brother in the Jewish chronicler Josephus. Although Christians added interpolations to these passages in their copies of Josephus, there is a clear consensus that Josephus wrote the core stating that Jesus was a religious man crucified by the Romans. This is all discussed in considerable detail in the first volume of John Meier's exhaustive "A Marginal Jew."
Robert Price has written a book that expresses his belief in "Jesus Agnosticism." He is agnostic not about whether Jesus was God, but whether Jesus actually existed. So what does Price say in response to Josephus and Meier? Absolutely nothing. So he has provided no reason why we should believe Josephus to be wrong. That Jesus' followers wrote little about him for four decades after his death is not surprising. There weren't that many of them, most of them were illiterate and they thought the world was going to end soon. Notwithstanding this simple solution Price argues that maybe people combined ideas from Greek Cynicism, Jewish scholars, classical heroes and cults of dying and resurrected Gods and projected them into a quasi-mythical Jesus who lived decades before the Gospel version did. In other words we are about to embark on a very complicated solution to a non-existent historical problem. Occam's razor anyone?
This is compounded with several fatal problems. (1) Inadequate sources: In search of "independent" traditions about Jesus, he spends thirty pages on a Sufi mystic versions of his sayings. The mystic lived ten centuries after Jesus, and obviously isn't independent proof of anything. Likewise Price uses dated authorities like Lord Raglan and Sir James Frazer's overstated theory of "dying and ressurrected Gods," (the most popular cult, that of Attis, clearly developed after Jesus). Meanwhile he cites a 1937 book by the discredited Hugh J. Schonfield to try to argue that Jesus lived 100 BCE. (2) Systematic anachronism: to show that Jesus was a Cynic, he compares verses to thoughts of Seneca and Musonius Rufus, who clearly lived after him. In searching for analogies for the empty tombs he quotes Chariton (first century CE), Longus (c. 150), Iamblichus (c.300), Philostratus (c.220) and Tatius (second century). Clearly the Gospels were not written that late, and so these Greek and Latin sources did not inspire them. (3) Confused comparative method: there are bound to be similarities in narratives, but this does not prove a common origin. "Macbeth," "Hamlet" and "King Lear," are all about monarchs who die because of the perfidy of someone they trusted. But they are obviously not the same story and have no common origin. And so there is no reason to believe that a legend in which the Greek healer Asclepius healed a person while in disguise was the basis of the story of the road to Emmaus. Likewise Price compares Jesus' order "Let the dead bury their dead," to several Cynic sayings. But he ignores the obvious difference. The cynics could care less about their corpses, while Jesus states that the Coming Kingdom of God is more important than the duty to bury one's father.
(4) Incoherent use of theoretical models: Price relies on Burton Mack's theory of Jesus and the Q Community as Cynics. But he also agrees with E.P. Sanders' view that Galilee was not a place likely to be open to Cynic (or Greek) influences. Rather than concluding that Mack is wrong, he uses this to argue that Greeks came up with the Q sayings and it was incorporated (how?) into Jewish thought. Price quotes with approval William Wrede's classic account of the Messianic Secret in Mark. But Wrede argued that Mark had Jesus keep his messianic status secret because people knew the real Jesus had never made such a claim. Such a contortion makes no sense if there was never a real Jesus to begin with. Price also ignores simpler solutions. He uses the ambiguities in the Gospels over who executed Jesus as proof that the actual event was far off in the past. He ignores the more obvious alternative: Jesus was executed by the Romans and the Gospel writers tried to get around this embarrassing fact by blaming the Jews. (5) Failure to explain the Jewish connection: all the early sources of Christianity are quite clear. The early Christians were Jews, not Greek philosophers or members of Pagan mystery cults. That Paul would come up with a theology of atonement to explain Jesus' death is one thing. But given that Jews did not expect a slain Messiash, why would he make up a crucifixion as well? Why indeed would Price's funky group of cosmopolitans try to convince the Jews that this non/barely existent Jesus was the culmination of their religion while at the same time using such ideas such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation and the Crucifixion they were most likely to reject? It just doesn't work.
Hard work but worth it.......2002-04-24
Robert Priceýs Deconstructing Jesus is a scholastic masterpiece of exhaustive research, carefully thought out arguments, and valuable insights into the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth. He does a fine job demonstrating, by comparing the Gospel accounts of Jesusý supernatural conception, miracles, death and resurrection with similar traditions found in the mystery cults of ancient Greece and the near East, that Jesus was probably a mythical figure created from a synthesis of numerous mythologies then in vogue in the ancient world. His relentless pursuit of ancient texts to make his point that Jesus was, essentially, a Judaized version of the ancient mystery religions that was later usurped by literalists in the Catholic Church, should leave the objective reader with little choice but to agree. I also found his demonstration that many of Jesusý teachings and parablesýwhich I previously considered the strongest evidence for a historical Jesus availableýto have parallels in the teachings of the Midrash and other rabbinical writings to be especially damning to the idea of a historical Jesus. While he remains open to the possibility of a literal historical figure existing behind the mythology, I had to agree with his assessment that such can neither be known nor, if it could be proven true, whether it would make any real difference.
While Priceýs conclusions and scholarship were flawless, thatýs not to say the book was not without some problems. Price is a scholar writing for other scholars. As such, this is a difficult book to follow and should not be attempted by the linguistically challenged. One classic "Priceism" should be enough to serve as an example: "Neusner was no longer willing to assume that such attributions meant much diachronically (actually going back in history to Rabbi X); no, instead they must derive their meaning synchronically: as it were, two-dimensionally along the picture plane of the particular document." (Pg. 99). Huh? But for those who enjoy that kind of theological techno-babble, this is a great read. As for myself, I found it akin to wading across a sea of molasses upon the back of a Rhino.
Price also has this irritating habit of dissecting the arguments of other scholars without fully explaining what their theory was or what he really found wrong with them. It was like walking into a foreign film with lots of badly translated subtitles. More than once I found myself lost and thoroughly uncomprehending what he was trying to say. In the last chapter, however, he redeems himself by pulling it all together and leaving us with the reasonable, articulate and seemingly objective conclusion that Jesus Christ was a mythical creationýone of many of the eraýthat rose to the top of the pecking order and survived into the modern era. I suspect most evangelical and conservative Christians will find much to take old Robert to task for in that, but that would be only because heýs drilling too close to a nerve.
Average customer rating:
|
Mimesis, Genres, and Post-Colonial Discourse: Deconstructing Magic Realism
Jean-Pierre Durix
Manufacturer: Palgrave Macmillan
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 General
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
| Classics
| Comic
| Contemporary
| Literary
General
| Criticism & Theory
| History & Criticism
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| British
| World Literature
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0333732243 |
Book Description
Presents a broad spectrum of critical approaches that question traditional sport history.
Average customer rating:
|
Deconstructing Images of The Turkish Woman
Zehra F. Arat
Manufacturer: Palgrave Macmillan
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
Turkey
| Asia
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Education
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Sociology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Women's Studies
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
History
| Women's Studies
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0312235062 |
Book Description
Along with the rest of the world, the country of Turkey is beset by efforts to push women into a particular prototype. This collection of essays seeks to combat such efforts by delving below the surface of common stereotypes surrounding Turkish women. Encompassing such diverse fields of study as political science, economics, business, ethnography, history, and literature, Deconstructing Images of “The Turkish Woman” includes experts from around the world who explore various images attributed to or imposed upon Turkish women. Written from the perspective of the 1990s, the essays evolve around the unifying theme of changes and continuities in the images of Turkish women from the late 19th century to the present.
Contributors : Aynur Demirdirek * Irvin Cemil Schick * Katherine E. Fleming * Ayse Durakbasa * Zehra Arat * Isik Urla Zeytinoglu * Emine Onaran-Incirlioglu * Hayat Kabasakal * Aynur Ilyasoglu * Carel Bertram * Arzu Öztürkmen * Yesim Arat
Book Description
Millions of Americans identify themselves as evangelicals. But what does the word mean? For author D. G. Hart, twentieth-century evangelicalism centers on Billy Graham-those in sympathy with him and those reacting to him. In Deconstructing Evangelicalism, D. G. Hart provocatively argues that evangelicalism is a concept that has obscured more of Christianity than it has revealed and should be abandoned as a separate religious identity. Instead, he suggests that American Christians rediscover their rich theological heritage rather than continue to struggle along with ''a minimalist account of the Christian faith.''
Customer Reviews:
An Enjoyable Read.......2006-03-16
What is an evangelical? When the boundaries of a definition are broadened wide enough, eventually the definition collapses in on itself, and the meaning of the movement becomes meaningless.
D. G. Hart writes a great book declaring that "Evangelicalism" is not a real identity, but instead is a well-intended construction of conservative Christians in the post-World War II climate of modernism vs. fundamentalism. Seeking to define a segment of Christianity in opposition to either the Fundamentalism or modernism, a large swath of pastors, theologians, pollsters, historians, evangelists, musicians, etc. worked to create a unified "Conservative Protestantism". The resulting edifice is known as "Evangelicalism".
Fifty+ years later it is painfully obvious that the only "unity" of evangelicalism is a unity that is so devoid of biblical theological substance that... who cares about evangelicalism? In a nutshell, Hart argues that it is time to dump the idea of Evangelicalism.
I have read dozens and dozens of books on the history of American Christianity, with a great number of these focusing on Evangelicalism. I say that because it is hard to tell if this would be an enjoyable book to read if you haven't already consumed a lot on the history of Evangelicalism. For me, the book was a delight. I love discovering new historical insight into key figures such as Carl Henry, Billy Graham, Fuller Seminary, the CCM industry, religious pollsters, etc. I think Hart writes exceedingly well. He is one of those authors that is not afraid to state his strong convictions. He calls it like he sees it - and this makes for good reading.
Here are some quotes from early on in the book:
"This book is about the way neo-evangelicals built the evangelical edifice and how academics have maintained the facade of the building commonly known as conservative Protestantism."(28)
"But the chief aim is to document the construction of evangelicalism as a scholarly tool of analysis and the concomitant deconstruction of evangelicalism as an expression of Christian faith and practice." (29)
"The first part of the book examines the scholarly construction of evangelicalism during the last twenty-five years... The last half of the book explores the way evangelicalism as a post-World War II religious movment has fragmented." (29)
"Without a self-conscious notion about ministry, a common theology, and a coherent understanding of worship, evangelicalism has deconstructed."(29)
One of the best quotes in the book comes in the last paragraph:
Was it actually conceivable that the word evangelical could hold together disparate Protestant beliefs and practices and mold them into some kind of unified whole? Even more basic was whether such an evangelical identity was desirable. The idea to make evangelicalism the conservative version of Protestantism was an interesting attempt to create an alternative religious voice that would counter mainline Protestantism and Roman Catholicism and would beat fundamentalism at the public relations game. But this evangelical movement was simply duplicating work already being done, not to shape a nation but to shepherd God's flock. Before evangelicalism, Christians had churches to hear the Word preached, to receive the sacraments, and to hear sound counsel and correction.Without evangelicalism, Protestant Christianity may not be as unified (when has it ever been?), but it will go one. And without the burden of forming a nationally influential coalition, American Protestants in all their Heinz 57 varieties, from Presbyterian to Calvary Chapel, may even be healthier.
Hart's book is both entertaining and thought-provoking.
One negative thing - why is there only one passing mention of Francis Schaeffer?
A Parachurch or a Church?.......2005-10-09
If you don't read Christianity Today for edification, are you an evangelical (10)?
I picked up DG Hart's Deconstructing Evangelicalism at my local "Christian bookstore" where stacks of this 2004 hardcover text were already on clearance for $4.95! The clerk thought I was looking for "destructive evangelism" and it is no wonder that he thought of the book as destructive. In this provocative monograph Hart takes on the evangelical subculture of which such bookstores are a part. Deconstructing Evangelicalism questions whether there actually is such a "thing" as evangelicalism. Is it a legitimate category of religious expression that can be measured by social scientists and codified by systematic theologians? Or is it an identity that has been formed by tenuous assumptions and sloppy scholarship? Given this provoking thesis I bought the book from a store that nearly paid me to take it. For these kinds of stores to sell Deconstructing Evangelicalism is like B.Y.U. opening up a Starbucks on campus; like your local Chinese takeaway giving out pizza coupons.
Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Contemporary Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham (Baker Academic, 2004) discusses "the e-word" and whether it should exist as a conceptual category. "Evangelicalism needs to be relinquished as a religious identity because it does not exist" (16). From this confrontational opening, Hart goes on to show that historians (ch 1), social scientists (ch. 2), and pollsters (ch 3) have mistakenly measured and assessed a movement that is not a church but a temporary coalition based more on celebrity than theology. In the second half, Hart looks at the polity (ch 4), creed (ch 5), and liturgy (ch 6) of evangelicalism - or really, the absence thereof. There is no polity because leaders like Billy Graham, James Dobson, and Tim LaHaye have no ecclesial authority. There is no creed beyond that of Scriptural inerrancy which is really no creed at all and says almost nothing. Finally, there is no liturgy in evangelicalism which embraces pop culture over meaningful encounter.
DG Hart is an outstanding historian and his book judiciously probes important aspects of evangelicalism's coalition including the founding of Fuller Seminary, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Evangelical Theological Society, the ascendancy of biblical inerrancy, and key research (e.g. by M. Noll and G. Marsden) that has defined the movement. Deconstructing Evangelicalism is not as scholarly as another Hart text I have read (The University Gets Religion) yet it is still intended for the academically minded. Hart shows a good bit of wit throughout as he compares the movement to Home Depot in that it has a lot of goods but assistance is hard to find, and as he fears that readers will donate his book to the annual public library sale.
The foil of liturgy-less, creed-less, and polity-less evangelicalism is "historic Christianity." Once evangelicalism is in conversation with classic forms of faith it ceases to exist: "Is evangelicalism still evangelicalism once it aligns itself with any of the historic expressions of Christianity? (186)" He continues to brandish the Reformed theologian's sword: "[T]traditional Christianity may indeed be better off without the cutting and pasting theology and practice that low-church Protestantism has performed" (196). Ouch! Yet in spite of these swipes, one is left to wonder what "historic" and "traditional" Christianity" would consist of. As the author himself says, "Showing the hollowness of evangelicalism is insufficient without an alternative" (31). While he quickly suggests an ecclesiology that is centered in word, sacrament, and ordination there isn't much sturdy construction that matches this deconstruction. Perhaps this is better defined in Hart's other texts (he is a prolific author) such as Recovering Mother Kirk. Yet it seems to me that much of his "classical" Christianity is a sophisticated attempt to justify personal preference for a type of formalism that is more cultural than universal.
Other weaknesses include an almost exclusive focus on American evangelicalism (this movement is strong in England [John Stott is the evangelical pope for many], Australia, and other parts of the globe -- why didn't Hart consider this?) and an absence of reference to recent evangelical theologians such as J.I. Packer, Millard Erickson, and Stan Grenz.
Even with these deficiencies, Hart's main thesis is worth considering. Is evangelicalism an identity so built on parachurch activities that it fails to qualify as a church? At day's end, is "liking Billy Graham" enough to qualify as a religious identity? Is the evangelical structure built on shifting sand? Readers who have had exposure to evangelicalism will enjoy this book and will find themselves challenged to rethink the materials and the tools their identity is constructed from.
Insightful and Interesting.......2005-06-06
"Deconstructing Evangelicalism" is both less and more than the title suggests.
Those readers who are interested in a social and theological critique of evangelicalism will be enlightened by this work which is best read with Ian Murray's "Evangelicalism Divided" and David Wells' "No Place for Truth". The book is somewhat less than it claims to be in that if you don't read these other books it would be rather difficult to evaluate the conclusions that Hart draws.
"Deconstructing Evangelicalism" is clearly aimed at a target audience of seminary students, professors, and professional historians. If you are in that category - this is clearly a text you should read. As one of the finest social-historians of 20th century American relgion, Hart is consistently insightful and the reader can have confidence that the scaffolding of observations is based on a foundation of solid scholarship.
For those who have read other works by D.G. Hart, this book needs no recommendation: Everything Hart writes is worth reading. For those who are unfamiliar with Hart, I would recommend "Defending the Faith" as your introduction to his scholarship.
Not all it could have been.......2004-12-30
This book is far, far, far from what it could have been. Yes, there is some interesting thought here but not enough for 197 pages. This book is definitely not for the average Evangelical but useful for the scholarly Evangelicals. C. R Biggs "Biggsman" review will be better than the book for many people.
Evangelicalism is NOT!.......2004-05-29
What is an evangelical? Where do we find their confession of faith? If I want to engage in a dialog with an evangelical, where do I find out what they believe? Who are their teachers? How does one get a membership card to join evangelicalism? Who is running this important and influential movement of the twentieth century?
D. G. Hart, elder and historian in the OPC, has written another fine historical study that ought to be considered by pastors and lay people alike. Hart's new book is a work of deconstruction. It is not deconstruction as we tend to think associated with French linguists and literary interpretation. It is a deconstruction of an identity.
It is Hart's important claim that 'evangelical' as a term exists, but that as a true identity within Christ's Church, 'evangelical' might as well be nonexistent. He writes provocatively in his interesting introduction:
"Evangelicalism needs to be relinquished as a religious identity because it does not exist. In fact, it is the wax nose of the twentieth-century American Protestantism?.Despite the vast amounts of energy and resources expended on the topic, and notwithstanding the ever growing volume of literature on the movement, evangelicalism is little more than a construction." (pgs. 16-17).
The book is divided into two parts: Part 1 is entitled "The Making of Evangelicalism" and Hart traces the history of evangelicalism in the twentieth century. Part 2 is entitled "The Unmaking of Evangelicalism" where he argues that evangelicalism is a movement without a creed, but has similiarities in modern worship.
Hart fairly acknowledges the good that evangelicals have accomplished and in no way undermines the good that God has done through the work of twentieth century evangelicals. What he seeks to historically understand is how should we categorize a people who have no confessions, or external denominations to hold them together, but rather are held together by famous teachers (Billy Graham, James Dobson and Tim Lahaye he names as the "parachurch celebrities"), and a few lowest-common-denominator doctrines that allow evangelicals to work without any offense to one another or a threat to their unity.
Hart asserts that evangelicalism cannot exist as a visible part of Christ's Church in historically upholding the three "marks of the church": Right preaching of the Word of God, correct administration of the sacraments, and discipline in order to uphold the first two. Hart writes that evangelical parachurch organizations have different goals (pgs. 123-124)
Hart argues that in the twentieth century, individualistic evangelicalism has envisioned the church as more of a business, where those who benefit from evangelical ministries are the consumers. If they do not like the product, whether it is a radio sermon or a television broadcast, they can merely turn it off.
In contrast to evangelicalism, churches who have identities in the visible church through local church membership, are confessional and submitted to elders. Hart writes:
"Churches, unlike parachurch entities, have creeds that let people contemplating membership know the content of the denomination's faith. Churches also have structures of governance that provide a mechanism of accountability that is very different from that of the market model, which determines which parachurch celebrities are the most popular and therefore authoritative." (pg. 124)
Hart concludes that "Evangelicalism is a seemingly large and influential religious body, but it lacks an institutional center, intellectual coherence, and devotional direction." (pg. 176). What then is the "recipe" for evangelicalism according to Hart? "Combine two cups of inerrancy, one cup of conversion, and a pinch of doctrinal affirmations; form into a patchwork of parachurch agencies, religious celebrities, and churches; season with peppy music professionally performed; and bake every generation." (pg. 183).
Evangelicalism is a term that neither pastors nor lay people ought to use, and especially historians of American Protestantism as Hart carefully writes in his conclusion. For evangelicalism is not; it is no thing; it is nothing. It does not exist as an identity, or as a tradition.
Now we must be reminded that as a historian Hart is as guilty as anyone else for using evangelicalism as an identity (note his book other books such as 'That Old-Time Religion in Modern America', or his collection of historical essays on evangelicalism entitled 'Reckoning with the Past'), but he wisely included an afterword to explain his new conclusions concerning this identity and tradition that is non-existent.
Dr. Hart describes himself as a "victim in recovery", having used the same terms as other historians, he now invites the academic community as well as general readers of his book to reconsider the term evangelical as anything more than an identity constructed and created out of thin air.
What I appreciate about this book, especially for pastors working in evangelical communities, is that Hart reminds us all that the glue that is ultimately holding evangelicalism together is not historic creeds and confessions, but an individualistic ?culture of celebrity which is the flip side of denying of the authority of traditions" (pg. 120).
Anyone concerned with the rampant individualism in today's congregations, as well as the lack of commitment to congregational life and membership needs to read this book and take thoughtful consideration to his remarks. While evangelicals have been used by God for many good things, one being the upholding of the biblical doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, there is much more to be concerned about than merely the inerrancy of Scripture.
We should also be concerned with the teaching of inerrant Scripture concerning the importance of Christ's visible church given to us equipped with gifted men ordained by God to preach the Word, administer the sacraments, and to exercise discipline and godly concern over the flock of God. The same inerrant Scripture that evangelicalism wholeheartedly defends teaches the importance of being part of a visible church and congregation of Christ's people. What good is affirming an inerrant Scripture and not obeying it and allowing it to create our identity as the people of God?
Evangelicals need to be reminded that the Holy Spirit did not begin working in Christ?s Church when the National Association of Evangelicals was started in 1942, but has been sovereignly active in building Christ?s Church throughout history.
I am convinced by the book's conclusions; I encourage you to read it as well!
Book Description
[Miller] aims at the heart of each work and reaches it with artistic insight. Those who participate in the theatre at any level as well as those with an avid interest in the subject will discover some fresh ideas here.
- Library Journal on From Assassins to West Side Story
Following on the success of the very popular and well-reviewed From Assassins to West Side Story comes Deconstructing Harold Hill. This is a book for all fans of musical theatre, and a must for directors and actors. Scott Miller's thoughtful analyses of some of the great works of the musical theatre take the buff or the professional on a journey of discovery. Each chapter looks at one musical, addressing:
- textual and musical themes
- ways in which production design can support those themes
- insight into the motivation and background of the characters
- historical and social context of the action of the show
- and much more.
Miller spotlights The Music Man, Chicago, The King and I, Passion, Ragtime, Sunday in the Park with George, and others. All are innovative works, providing a springboard for the kind of in-depth discussion among directors, their actors, and designers that can make working on a musical - or just seeing one - the most satisfying experience you've ever had. You'll never look at musicals the same way again!
Customer Reviews:
a must-read for ANY theatre enthusiast.......2003-07-05
Every analysis that Miller wrote in this book just blew me away. It completely opened my eyes to all the subtext behind musicals that prior to this just seemed...well, dull. However, I suddenly acquired new views on musicals like "The Music Man" and "Camelot" and I now appreciate them not only as classics but engaging pieces of theatre. His ideas on all the other musicals, especially the Sondheim pieces are simply enlightening. What are you waiting for? Buy it!
Fascinating, Playful, and Occasionally Brilliant.......2001-03-14
I loved this author's first book, From Assassins to West Side Story, but I wasn't prepared for the further depth and greater brilliance of his second book, Deconstructing Harold Hill. This is a man who knows his theatre, who understands human nature, and who cares enough about great art to treat it seriously and respectfully without being afraid to criticize it or demand fresh approaches. This is a work of great intellect that is still accessible to readers with no theatre or music background (a rarity), and yet, I would guess, in depth and surprising enough to aid the most experienced professional.
In his introduction, Mr. Miller complains that American directors don't come at older American musicals with fresh enough perspectives, and the rest of the book does what those directors can't -- it looks, as if for the first time, at a collection of wonderful, important musicals, looking at them fresh, taking the time to think about and question the things nobody else will.
His discussin of the use of musical themes in The Music Man is incredble -- there's so much there I hadn't noticed before -- and his writing makes it all accessible for someone with no music background. His discussions of the character of Harold Hill -- basically a villain who acts like a hero -- is fascinating. He sees glorious little details in this show I've never seen before.
His chapter on Camelot opened my eyes like never before to the depth and possibilities of this show that usually falls into the shadow of My Fair Lady. Mr. Miller sees complexity and nuance in these characters that I've never seen explored before. How amazing it would be to see a production of Camelot that used Mr. Miller's ideas. The show would be transformed instantly from a pretty musical into a soaring, searing piece of tragic theatre.
His chapter on Chicago makes a compelling case for why the revival doesn't do the show justice. And his chapters on Sondheim musicals (Passion and Sunday in the Park) confirm for me that Mr. Miller is the preeminent American interpreter of Sondheim's works. Though I live in Seattle, I may just venture down to St. Louis to see Mr. Miller's ideas at work on his own stage. How lucky the people of St. Louis must be to have an artist this intelligent, this passionate, and this emotional working in their city.
A GREAT ONE FOR THE READING LIST.......2001-03-12
I am a Lecturer in Acting and Music Theatre at the Central Queensland Conservatorium of Music (Bachelor of Music Theatre program) and DECONSTRUCTING HAROLD HILL is on my book list for the students. Why?
Because underneath your writing is an undeniable energy, love, support for our craft; this fragile crystal of a business called 'show'. I am not really concerned whether or not I agree with your opinions, apothesis, arguments, discussions etc...what I want is my students to be infected by PASSION and your book is an undeniable example of that. Like you and me, I WANT them to have opinions, to engage in lively and researched debate, to listen to/see the works of the repertoire, to know which song/scene comes from what and that takes energetic, rigourous and PASSIONATE research. If your book goes a wee way to get them off their arses and into action...so be it.
I thank you for a book that has not only enthused my students but that goes one step further towards securing the fragile architecture of our business...
WILL CONYERS
A GREAT ONE FOR THE READING LIST.......2001-03-12
I am a Lecturer in Acting and Music Theatre at the Central Queensland Conservatorium of Music (Bachelor of Music Theatre program) and DECONSTRUCTING HAROLD HILL is on my book list for the students. Why?
Because underneath your writing is an undeniable energy, love, support for our craft; this fragile crystal of a business called 'show'. I am not really concerned whether or not I agree with your opinions, apothesis, arguments, discussions etc...what I want is my students to be infected by PASSION and your book is an undeniable example of that. Like you and me, I WANT them to have opinions, to engage in lively and researched debate, to listen to/see the works of the repertoire, to know which song/scene comes from what and that takes energetic, rigourous and PASSIONATE research. If your book goes a wee way to get them off their arses and into action...so be it.
I thank you for a book that has not only enthused my students but that goes one step further towards securing the fragile architecture of our business...
WILL CONYERS
The perfect book for people who really love musicals.......2001-03-10
How wonderful and unusual to find a book about musical theatre that is never pretentious, never dull, brilliantly opinionated, and that has a healthy sense of humor about its subject. There is more joy and humor in this book than in any other similar book I've ever read. Miller's intelligence and enthusiasm overflows and you'll find yourself smiling, laughing out loud, and humming along as you read this happily readable, entertaining, irreverent book.
This book understands that the dark side of humanity is always more complex and more interesting and so it focuses mostly on shows that tackle the dark side -- Camelot, Chicago, Falsettos, King and I -- but interestingly, all shows that use a lot of humor to make their very serious points.
This is not a book for those grumpy old curmudgeons who are always grumbling that musicals ought to be silly, sappy, escapist comedies. This is a book for people who love Grown-Up Musicals, the kind that feed both brain and soul. If that's you, you have to buy this book. You'll love it.
Customer Reviews:
Painfully academic and clinical study of animated features.......2001-08-04
I thought this book would be more all encompassing, but it analyzes only the specifics of the animated features from 1989 to 1999 and ignores the rest of the company and the parks. Not a topic I care about.
It is also laughably pretensions and academic. The word 'oeuvre' is used 16 times before page 25. Here's just a piece of an actual run-on sentence from page 15..."one a Heideggerian-by-way-of-de-Man-Bennington-and-a-tradition-of-idnigenous-socialism, the other a post-colonialist-Bhabbha-Spivakc-Young-turning-left-at-feminism". I couldn't make this stuff up. About as fun as drinking bleach.
You would think that such a clinical dissection would at least be accurate, but the introduction alone has four glaring factual errors that instantly made me distrust any of the subsequent information. Some of the errors: Disney died in 1967, they're building a park in Beijing, Tokyo Disneyland isn't open yet, and calling Animal Kingdom 'Safari World'. This was written in 1999, so thereÃ*s no excuse for not checking these facts.
All in all a tedious read.
Please reissue this book.......2000-08-23
This is a very insightful book. If you like depth on a subject, this book is for you. Essential reading for Disney fans. I never was able to locate a copy of my own.
Intelligent and to the point.......2000-05-03
While the essays are a little overly verbose and unapproachable, the subjects they speak to are difficult to find elsewhere. In my personal research of Disney, I have not been able to find a more useful critique of the cinematics and plot of Disney movies
Book Description
In
Deconstructing History, Alan Munslow examines history in the postmodern age, providing an introduction to the topics and debates inherent in a postmodern approach to history.
Detailing both empiricist and deconstruction issues and considering the arguments of both schools, Munslow debates the position that not only is history defined as the textual product of historians but also that narrative may provide the textual model for the past itself. An examination of the character of historical evidence and an exploration of the role of historians as well as a discussion of the failure of traditional historical models is included. Munslow maps the controversies involved in and assesses the merits of the deconstructionist position, arguing that instead of beginning with past events themselves, history begins with representations of the past.
Download Description
Munslow examines history in the postmodern age. He provides an introduction to the debates and issues of postmodernist history. He also surveys the latest research into the relationship between the past, history and historical practice.
Customer Reviews:
Deconstructing Alun Munslow's "Deconstructing History".......2002-01-29
I can see how this book can be read as problematic. Deconstructing History is based on a "deconstructive" reading of history and its sources. I can see how this lucid piece may have changed the entire discipline of history. Alun Munslow is not really original. Borrowing from Hayden White, Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes and Jacque Derrida; Munslow's main thesis revolves around the premise that historians write history as narrative and fall under the limitations that this paradigm provides. Munslow details both empiricist and deconstructionist issues and considers the arguments of both schools. To Munslow, Deconstructing History debates whether history is defined as the textual product of historians or the textual model for the past itself.
The argument, and I feel is a compelling one, revolves around the various layers that mediate the past from the reader. The first layer involves "the past" itself - as a referent. The second layer involves the "archive" or the evidence. The third layer involves the interpretation of the facts in a narrative from. All these forms of mediation pose a problem as it "obscures history's real character"(Munslow 1).
The past itself - that it is a reality is not in question. However, "the absence of a direct correspondence to the reality of the past, the way in which history is interpreted and reported as a narrative is of primary importance to the acquisition and character of our historical knowledge."(Munslow 163). The past itself is not in question but getting to this base layer is a problem. The problem begins when the facts from the evidence, the "archive" is already subject to the narrative form.
The "archive" or evidence is turned into 'facts' through the narrative interpretation of the person writing it. In effect, both the representation and the facts themselves are already "tainted". The third layer of mediation seems to make matters worse for the reader. The Author decides to interpret the already tainted facts and writes history. My sense is that because of this "mediation" the Author is then effecting some form of epistemic violence. This is where Foucault comes in. The Author functions as the legitimizer of Discourse and effects another layer of meaning. It would be naïve for those who espouse a reconstructive views to ignore the effect of the Author, the impact of strategies, tropes, emplotment, and the fact that history is written in the here and now. According to Foucault, the narrative is important over and above all these narrative limits but because of whom it excludes. The point is clear, history is not "discovered", history is "created". History is a narrative interpretation and built into this is the ideology or social theory that determines a particular author's oeuvre.
Where then do we go from here? According to Barthes, "Classic criticism has never paid any attention to the reader; for it, the writer is the only person in literature. We are now beginning to let ourselves be fooled no longer by the arrogant antiphrastical recriminations of good society in favor of the very thing it sets aside, ignores, smothers, or destroys; we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to over throw the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author." (Barthes 148). What are the implications of this? Well, if we decenter the Author from this function knowing that the history is constructed, then it takes away the role of the Author as the definitive expert - and that is, to lots of historians, dangerous. On the flipside, it is clear that it opens up lots of room for reexamining history. Do we open ourselves to a reread of history? I think we have no choice.
Miguel Llora
Books:
- Einstein: His Life and Universe
- Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
- Generation of Swine: Tales of Shame and Degradation in the '80's
- Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't
- Grindhouse: The Sleaze-filled Saga of an Exploitation Double Feature
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7)
- Heirloom Vegetable Gardening: A Master Gardener's Guide to Planting, Seed Saving, and Cultural History
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Glass Castle: A Memoir
- On the Case with Lord Peter Wimsey: Three Complete Novels/Strong Poison/Have His Carcase/Unnatural D
- Bali Modern: The Art of Tropical Living
- Construction Specifications Writing: Principles and Procedures
- History: Fiction or Science
- How to Make Money in Commercial Real Estate: For The Small Investor
- Little Lord Fauntleroy
- Conducting a Successful Major Gifts and Planned Giving Program: A Comprehensive Guide and Resource
- Draw 50 Buildings and Other Structures: The Step-by-Step Way to Draw Castles and Cathedrals, Skyscra
- Queen Anne's Lace
Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?
The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave
The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?
