|
|||
Book Review:Principle of the Path
I’m sure Stanley is a good pastor. By the way he writes, he’s an engaging preacher. Principle of the Path, however, is not a good book. Tone: I made the mistake of looking at the back jacket and seeing his publicity photo. He wore a casual shirt and looks twelve years old. Now, I’ve had a few people in my parish suggest that I’m young, and perhaps not old enough to be wise. It’s irritating. One doesn’t have to be advanced in years to give good pastoral care. But the problem with Stanley is that he’s adopted a condescending, know-it-all tone throughout the book and looks like a know-it-all-I-just-graduated-seminary guy. I actually think he’s much older than he appears, but that photo doesn’t do him any favors with the tone he uses. Every time he wrote of his surperior wisdom in understanding The Principle, I couldn’t help but think of that boyish person on the back cover. To make matters worse, when the author was not repeating his “I told you so” tone, he adopted a flippant conversational tone that can work well in the pulpit or in a classroom but falls flat in print. What is The Principle? It’s actually pretty good: we make choices in life and bear the consequences. Much of the time we can reasonalby predict if our choices will put us on the path to our desired outcome. If you start having an extra glass of wine every night, you can imagine what path that choice is putting you on. You make the bed you lie in–or lie in the bed you make, I suppose. It’s not rocket science, but it is a principle we like to ignore. I heard a long depressing show on NPR this afternoon wherein the host spoke with people who had terminal cancers. The main message: they lived each day making choices which would have lasting value. They chose not to worry about possessions. They didn’t waste nights watching TV. Wasting time and energy on temporary pleasures was like eating ashes. Most of us ignore this most of our lives. We do need to be reminded of this. Stanley does it well, then repeats it oOer and over again. To make it worse, Stanley felt the need to justify it by spending far too long exegeting a few verses of Proverbs. I’m talking chapters of defensive-sounding Scriptural lay-level exegesis. And then he repeated it all again, basically saying everyone who is in debt, buys new cars with loans, has a bad marriage or disobedient kids are idiots with only themselves to blame. It’s pretty legalistic. Possibly Related posts: 5 comments to Book Review:Principle of the Path |
     |
||
|
Copyright © 2010 This Side of the Pulpit - All Rights Reserved 154 queries. 0.684 seconds. |
|||
Principle of the Pathby Andy Stanley is the latest book I’m reviewing as part of Thomas Nelson’s Book Review Bloggers program. I actually received the book and read it months ago. I’ve finally decided to write the review and put the book far behind me.
Monday, August 31st, 2009 | Tags:
Isn’t that odd, how the medium one uses influences how the message comes across.
Erma Bombeck, the harried housewife, was hilarious in print, but when she got on TV, her “humor” was downright depressing.
But as you say you’re young, you probably don’t remember her…sigh.
I have been thinking about that lately. I am working on an article and had my wife (a wonderful editor) take a look at it. As she handed over a red-drenched draft, she said, the biggest problem is where you write like you’re preaching it instead of writing it.
I do remember Erma Bombeck from her column. Don’t remember a television show, though. But it sounds like it was not memorable anyway.
and nary a word of the Gospel, I’ll wager. Stanley’s readers and listeners are left in despair.
It’s funny how everyones free choice of opinions work, isn’t it? I received this book as a gift and finished it the same day. It was one of the best books I’ve ever read. Also Mr. Hall, have you ever met Mr. Stanley? Do you even know him? If so, okay, cool. But if not, how in the world can you sit here as another member of the Body of Christ and judge him like you did in this post? You may be the older one here, as you wrote, but after reading what you said, I have a very hard time believing you’re the more mature one.
Respectfully,
-Joe
Well, Joe, like you said, “everyones free choice of opinions” [sic]. And no, I’ve never met Stanley. But you ask how I can sit and judge him, which is a good question. If you read what I wrote you’ll see that I do not judge him. In fact, the book gives the impression that he is a fine pastor. What I am critiquing is his written work and the way it is being marketed. Just as you judge my written work here.
Thanks for reading, and God bless you.