Love in the Time of Cholera, by Gabriel García Márquez

****

An excerpt of a review recently posted on Schaeffer's Ghost:

García Márquez contrasts the unexciting and monotonous familiarity of Fermina’s relationship with Dr. Urbino with the vibrant passion of her affair with Florentino. Neither relationship is portrayed as ideal, per se; there are certainly positive qualities in Fermina’s marriage to Dr. Urbino, and it’s clear that Florentino is no saint. Still, I couldn’t help feeling that there was a false dichotomy being subtly forced upon the reader: a choice between loveless and emotionally lifeless security and commitment; or tumultuous, impractical passion (with, apparently, no moral boundaries). These are the two faces of love. Which will you choose? 

The choice is a misleading one, not least because I suspect younger readers (if the novel comes their way) may come to believe that Florentino, with all his nonstop womanizing, somehow loves Fermina more than the reliable Dr. Urbino does. [...] This either/or idea fits right in with the modern romantic narrative being pitched today: Passion matters more than pragmatism; passion is what draws lovers together and keeps them there. True love is entirely free of restrictions, and any attempt to bind love with commitment or promises will do nothing but strangle that love. 

We know from Scripture that this is not the case. In the created order, commitment is the foundation of love. We see it in the first marriage, when Adam claims Eve as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (a clear implication of lifelong union and commitment, as nothing short of death would cause him to forsake or be severed from his own body). We see it in Song of Solomon, when the Beloved expresses ardent sexual love for her Lover, while proclaiming that ‘love is strong as death.’ We see it in God’s covenant relationship with Abraham and eventually Israel; because He loves Israel, because He has chosen Israel, He commits to Israel—and keeps that commitment even in the face of continued infidelity. We see it most of all in the Gospel, where Christ sacrificed Himself on behalf of His bride the church, in order to ensure an eternal marriage with His chosen people. Christian love has passion aplenty—passion that is only enhanced and matured by commitment.

Full review available here.

A Confident Heart: How to Stop Doubting Yourself & Live in the Security of God’s Promises, by Renee Swope

***

An excerpt of a review recently posted on Schaeffer's Ghost:

But the biggest reason for my disconnect with A Confident Heart is rooted not in Swope’s tone or style, but in the very problem she attempts to address. At the end of the day, I don’t know if I believe ‘self-confidence’ is actually something Christians need in the first place. Swope occasionally calls it ‘God-confidence’ in order to distinguish it from sinful pride, but she still essentially means ‘the way we think about ourselves.’ The promises she highlights talk a lot about who we are, what we will receive from God, etc. These are biblical promises, but the end goal still seems to be the change how we think about ourselves. And I’m not sure that’s helpful or necessary. Meditating on God’s promises does tell us about ourselves, but first and foremost, those promises tell us about God. And when we’re full up with faith in the character of God, I don’t think we’ll actually spend all that much mental energy on ourselves at all. I don’t think self-confidence will enter into it. Which makes sense—when I experience low ‘self-confidence’, it is not myself I am doubting, but God. I am questioning His sovereignty, His ability to work through a sinful vessel, His finished work on the cross, His goodness, His faithfulness. I don’t think there’s actually a Christian category for ‘self-doubt.’ We’re either experiencing appropriate humility about our fallen nature and our weakness apart from Christ, or we’re doubting God Himself. 

As a result, I tend to eye with skepticism any scheme with the ultimate goal of me thinking about me. Even if I’m doing it in a more biblical way, I’m still thinking about me. And I just can’t bring myself to think that should be our goal. I sincerely doubt that Paul gave himself pep-talks about self-confidence. You see a lack of self-confidence in Bible heroes when they struggle—Gideon, say, or Moses, who doubted that God could use them. They might claim to suffer from self-doubt, but really, they doubted God—doubted that He would (or could) do what He said He would. Since their doubts are not really about themselves at all, God addresses those doubts by telling them who He is. And once those doubts are assuaged, you don’t see Gideon or Moses bursting into a rousing chorus of “I Have Confidence” from The Sound of Music. They’re too busy talking about God. Once these folks see God aright, once they have confidence in God, their self-confidence is a non-issue. It’s beyond irrelevant. Like a cow’s opinion, it’s moo.

Full review available here.

Much Ado About Nothing (2012)

**

An excerpt of a review recently posted on Schaeffer's Ghost:

In the ‘Making Of’ featurette, Whedon explains that he sees Much Ado as, essentially, a dark noir story, which makes the black-and-white film choice all the more appropriate. However, with all due respect to Mr. Whedon (and I do respect him deeply and have greatly enjoyed his previous productions), I think he’s dead wrong. Much Ado is, at its heart, a lighthearted romp. It is a classic comedy, full of humor and good cheer from start to finish: from Beatrice and Benedick’s zippy one-liners, to the farcical plot by their friends to entangle them romantically, to Dogberry’s mind-boggling incompetence, it is just fun. The worst thing that happens is a couple of misunderstandings, each of which is cleared up in a matter of hours. Yes, those misunderstandings lead to some heart-wrenching scenes, and very nearly have fatal consequences for those involved, but in the end it all works out. The villain runs off and is apprehended off-screen, and everyone lives happily ever after. Everyone is essentially good and likable except the malevolent (and ultimately ineffective) Don John and his henchmen. That’s … not really noir. At all.

Full review available here.

Death by Living: Life Is Meant to Be Spent, by N.D. Wilson

**

An excerpt of a review recently posted on Schaeffer's Ghost:

[...] Wilson’s style reminds me of nothing so much as one of those trailers from uber-hipster Rob Bell. You know the ones—full of sentences and fragments and ideas woven together to establish his point (or the question he wants to ask). If I’m being honest, part of my discomfort with the book is probably the result of this marked similarity to such a well-known and deeply troubling author. Fortunately, the similarities between Wilson and Bell begin and end at the stylistic level. As far as I can tell from this work, Wilson definitely has it on Bell in the theology department: what theology there is here seems fine. But I find Bell’s writing disturbing, and it’s difficult to read such a similar style without a certain amount of reflexive discomfort. (Then again, I will say this for Bell: I always know what his take-away point is. As unorthodox and problematic as his conclusions may be, Bell never leaves you wondering what those conclusions are.)

Full review available here.

What Are You Afraid Of? Facing Down Your Fears with Faith, by Dr. David Jeremiah

****

An excerpt of a review recently posted on Schaeffer's Ghost:

I confess, I know next to nothing about Dr. David Jeremiah. I’ve heard the name, sure, and am vaguely aware of a radio program and possibly a televised sermon. But, well, televangelism and religious radio programming being what they are, I was more than a little skeptical when I first cracked open his latest work, What Are You Afraid Of? Imagine my delight when I discovered that Dr. Jeremiah’s analysis of fear is both biblically sound and practically helpful. In fact, I was originally asked to read and respond to a single chapter, but I was so pleasantly surprised (and impressed) by the substance of the book that I went ahead and read the whole thing.

Full review available here.

Fully Alive: A Biblical Vision of Gender that Frees Men and Women to Live Beyond Stereotypes, by Dr. Larry Crabb

**

An excerpt of a review recently posted on Schaeffer's Ghost:

The trouble is the foundation of Crabb’s framework. Although the book purports to be based on a biblical understanding of femininity and masculinity, the primary basis for Crabb’s ideas seems to be … the sex act. Or at least the human reproductive system. Like John Eldredge before him, Crabb sees in sexual intercourse a physical picture of biblical gender roles. Actually, no. That’s not accurate. That might be ok. Crabb seems to see gender roles as a picture of sex. In other words, rather than starting with a study of Scripture as a whole in an attempt to discern its teaching on gender, he seems to start with sex and then cherry-pick the bible verses that best support his claims. 

The entirety of his argument regarding ‘biblical’ femininity seems to rest on the fact that the Hebrew word for ‘female’ is etymologically connected to the word for ‘perforated or punctured’—that is, something with holes in it. Even assuming that he’s done his homework here, and that the etymological connection is a reference to the female sex organ—that somewhere back along the line, the Hebrew term for female was essentially ‘something you nail’—those etymological connections are not an adequate basis for an entire philosophy of gender.

Full review available here.

Dealing with Dragons, by Patricia C. Wrede

****

An excerpt of a review recently posted on Children's Books and Reviews:

Cimorene is a princess who would make any feminist proud. If The Paper Bag Princess managed to avoid the temptation to bitterness and misandry, she might well have grown up to be Cimorene. Dissatisfied with her feminine lot, she persuades her father’s various retainers to teach her fencing, cooking, magic, and Latin. [...] Rather than simply complaining about the injustice of her circumstances, she rolls up her sleeves and changes them. [...] Where her sisters simper stupidly and whine when they don’t get their way, Cimorene is intelligent, innovative, hardworking, and possessed of more than her fair share of common sense. [...]

As role models go, young female readers could do a lot worse than Cimorene.

Full review available here.