1. On the more friendly side, Shaun Nolan and Matt Bohling (WSC alumni and PCA pastors) have an edifying and thoughtful podcast:
Original post 2 June 2009
Ordinary Means and in the latest installment they offer a review of RRC. Hey Mikey!, They like it! (but not without some criticisms). Shaun was a bit more appreciative of the book than Matt. Their chief criticism is that I do not deal with Scripture at sufficient length or detail. To which I reply:
Their central criticism really raise the question of the legitimacy of history as a source of knowledge and correction. I understand that most Americans don’t have much time for history, but don’t we learn from Scripture itself that we are a historical (not a-historical) people? Doesn’t Ps 78 tell us to repeat the history of God’s people to our children?
As a prologue to the second review, I should mention briefly a criticism that Matt makes, namely that I seem to want to go backwards in time. Shaun, very helpfully, points us, however, to the epilogue as one place (among others) where I anticipated and addressed this criticism explicitly. The point of RRC is NOT to go backwards. My students will recognize this from their medieval-Reformation and Ancient Church courses as the “golden age” fallacy.
2. The second review is rather less happy. It’s not that I object to a negative review, but this review is beyond negative. I debated whether to link to it since, at the editor’s invitation, I have written a response, but the response will not be published until next month. Thus Alan Strange’s account of the book appears for a month without reply. He has written a strongly worded and more or less categorical denunciation of RRC in the pages of this month’s Ordained Servant. As I’ve expressed to Alan over the phone and by email, I was more than a little surprised by his criticisms. It’s not that I did not expect such criticisms. I did, but not from those who identify themselves as “confessional.” Since October most of the reviews of have been generally positive. Lig Duncan recently recommended RRC to the folks at Twin Lakes Fellowship but I suppose that it’s been out long enough that those upon whose toes I tread in the book will begin to respond.
Alan did make some helpful comments to me by email. Unfortunately those comments did not make their way into print nor did I have the advantage of seeing them before I wrote my response. So there it is. I hope that the the “blowback” will not deter folk from actually reading the book for themselves. I don’t mind honest disagreement but I do object to misrepresentation.