edit:
It's been a long time since I've been here. I read my review below with both amusement and slight embarrassment. I remember being irked the day I wrote it, and I must apologize for it's tone. It was not the most Christian way to go about writing.
However, I do stand by the central point I was making. Disagreement is fine, but avoid making accusations. I must disagree with a following reviewer about preconceptions. I was merely pointing out that many people come to read Boyd with the purpose of striking him down; I was simply advising the readers to avoid this purpose and to examine their own background. Obviously, reading a book with an empty mind is both impossible and irresponsible, but when we evaluate our own influences we can better handle debates such as this one. The reviewer's logic is circular about Boyd; we all have outside philosophical influences, "liberal" or "conservative," and he seemingly thinks that the label of conservative automatically entails correctness. Any objective person will say that Augustine had influences from Hellenistic philosophy; this does not automatically mean that his biblical interpretations are illegitimate. Likewise, Boyd, like all of us, has influences from Harthorne (I think "indoctrinate" is highly inaccurate), but this does not mean he is incorrect all of a sudden. To argue this way borderlines arrogance, for it assumes that "those" people don't have philosophical influences as others. The very term Calminian is curious as well; obviously, both Arminians are Calvinists are concerned about the Bible and differ on interpretation; saying that they would be "Calminian" if they truly were wholly Scriptural is, again, somewhat arrogant. I disagree with Calvinists, but I have no doubt that they are concerned with the Bible and I would not question that.
To the unfortunate reviewer with the bad experience with Boyd, I must say that I'm sorry. I do not know the guy personally. However, I will say that to be careful with accusations of him not being a "true" Christian. Boyd is not perfect, nor are the members of church. All Christians have acted un-Christian at some point of their lives; thank goodness God will forgive such errors. If you are correct that Boyd is un-Christian and an incurable hypocrite, then I know I'm in trouble because I have acted unloving many times before (as my post below indicates). Leave final judgment to God.
Back to the book. I highly recommend it. Is Boyd perfect? No. Does he have outside philosophical influences? Yes, as we all do. Does he love God and does he care about the Bible? For what I can see, yes he does. If you disagree, please treat him as a Christian brother regardless.
...
Gregory Boyd has obviously become quite a controversial figure. However, this is probably more due to, quite frankly, many Christians' arrogance and alarm over hearing something different than they grew up with.
I've always been annoyed with people throwing around heretic labels and writing with a clear axe to grind. Obviously, nobody is forced to agree with Boyd on every point, but if you read this man's work, you know that he has nothing but respect for the Bible and in general his life and views land him squarely within conservative evangelical Christianity, contrary to what many reviewers would like us to believe. Boyd's book refuting the Jesus Seminar is a favorite among evangelicals.
Wow. Somebody disagrees on a doctrinal point. What a crisis. This issue is not nearly as threatening to the biblical concepts of God's majesty and love than people are treating it.
I've always been remarkably unimpressed with Calvinism due to its arrogance in interpreting Scripture and its curious desire to attribute every single detail, including evil, to "God's plan." Boyd does a good job in exposing many flaws of Calvinism, and Christians, regardless if they agree completely or not, should definitely be open to this criticism.
To me, it does sound like the Calvinists here are no different than the ones I have met personally. Except for arguing, rightly, in a civil manner that is seeking to correct mistakes, they would rather accuse of intentionally screwing up doctrine. For instance, it's NOT legitimate to accuse an Arminian for devaluing God's sovereignty on purpose; obviously, a Christian would not be an Arminian if he thought so. Calvinists throw a fit, likewise, when Arminians accuse them of making God morally ambiguous. If Calvinists do not like people accusing them right off the bat of jeopardizing a central attribute of God, then they should not do the same.
To the reader, I'll tell you this much: Boyd departs from some traditional UNDERSTANDING of God's attributes, but he in no way tries to throw any out the window. Disagree with him, but do NOT throw a temper tantrum just because he has a doctrinal difference. You're pathetic if you do. Ignore these accusations of Boyd being a souped-up liberal heretic; Boyd would defend to the death the historicity of Jesus and the saving power of his death and resurrection.
Oooooo... he's from Princeton and Yale. He must be a naughty New Age psycho in disguise. Please, people... if anything, that shows Boyd is intelligent and the he has a wide range of experiences from different areas, unlike many pastors who simply grow up glued into their ultraconservative surroundings.
Read this book. Try to read it without too many preconceptions, and you'll appreciate its effort and thought-provoking material, even though you disagree with some areas (as I do).
