2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Another disappointment . . ., April 21, 2009
This review is from: Mark's Story: The Gospel According to Peter (The Jesus Chronicles) (Mass Market Paperback)
. . . from the authors of "John's Story", with presumably Jenkins doing most of the writing and LaHaye providing the "theology".
Again, a caveat, because it seems as though every time I write something critical about LaHaye or Jenkins I get bashed as some sort of anti-Christian kook -- and nothing is further from the truth. I am a devout Christian; most would consider me rather conservative; and I have served in Christian education and ministry for many years. My dislike for the writing of these two individuals has nothing to do with my own personal relationship with Jesus -- and everything to do with bad writing and worse theology. The only reason I deal with this c**p at all is due to the numbers of students I teach who seem to think that LaHaye and Jenkins and their writings represent traditional, historic Christianity -- and this is simply not the case.
First, the good bits: (and yes, I have some good bits to say!)
The quality of the writing has improved significantly since "John's Story". It still does not approach quality writing, but is an improvement.
The depth of the characters and the quality of the storytelling has also improved. No Pulitzer Prize here -- but certainly an improvement.
The "padding" is greatly reduced. One of my criticisms from "John's Story" is that so much of the book was devoted to merely reproducing the Johannine Corpus directly from Scripture. While "Mark's Story" is about the same length as "John's Story" and while the Gospel According to Mark, and the two Epistles of Peter are appended, the appendix is so much shorter. (There is, of course, no mention of the authorship questions surrounding 2nd Peter -- questions the Early Church Fathers struggled with until late in the 4th century.)
Why only a single star?
Because even with the improvements, "Mark's Story" barely -- BARELY -- rises to the level of "light reading". I'm not trying to be mean or ugly here -- but there's more challenge in "Little House On The Prairie"! This is supposed to be a book for adults -- and I have elementary-aged children who would yawn through it.
Even with the improved character development, much of the dialog (like both "Kingdom Come" and "John's Story" involves persons essentially reciting Scripture passages at each other. There is a clear difference between the written word and the spoken word -- but not here!
Finally, and for me, as an historian, this is the most serious. I have been following LaHaye's writing for more than 25 years. In his theology and his eschatology, he has demonstrated over and over again that he is a hard-line, Bible-only, (rabid) anti-Catholic fundamentalist. On one level, I suppose, that's fine -- it's his cup of tea (certainly not mine!) On another level, however, for someone to take the positions he has consistently taken over the years, for him to write a book like "Mark's Story" in which much of the content is based NOT on Scripture, but rather on Church History and Tradition (CATHOLIC) Tradition, is fundamentally dishonest. Examples:
1) The idea that Peter traveled to, and died, in Rome. While the enormous majority of Christians -- Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants -- accept this historical tradition, fundamentalists have long and loudly argued this point, as they claim no direct Scriptural basis. Yet here we see Peter in Rome!
2) The tradition that Peter died by crucifixion in Rome is rejected by many fundamentalists. Yet LaHaye not only accepts the tradition -- but also the very Catholic belief that Peter was crucified (at his own request) head-downward. (See point 1!)
3) The idea that Mark became the leader of the Church in Alexandria. Again, a tradition not found in Scripture -- but held as true, based on the testimony of Church History and Tradition! Catholic Tradition! (Again, see point 1!)
4) Most fundamentalists are typically cessationists -- namely, they believe that the manifestations of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit ended with the Apostles. Yet upon Mark's arrival in Alexandria -- AFTER the death of Peter -- he immediately heals an injured man.
Other examples could be given; these are presented for brevity. My question: What IS LaHaye and what DOES he believe? He is obviously using CATHOLIC primary and secondary source material to market a book directly mainly at evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants. WHY? Does he believe these traditions? If so, many of his fellow fundamentalists would shudder! If not, WHY IS HE PRESENTING THEM?
If someone is truly interested in the Early Church, there is much primary source material available -- in English -- which would slake that interest.
But give this stuff a miss.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
