A few days ago somebody posted at Amazon a rather unique review of my book. Though he gave the book only one star out of five, I was far from upset or outraged when I read it. I was more perplexed. In fact, I didn’t quite know what to do with the review and thought maybe I’d post it here to see if someone can explain it to me. Because, frankly, I’m confused.
The author, going by the name Arktophylax, posted it under the heading “Horrible Self-Congratulatory Conformist Liberalism.” Here is what he wrote:
The author attempts at transcending pseudointellectualism but is unable to discern what constitutes orthodox Christian spirituality and his own distorted, incomplete psychological development and off-putting androgyne tendencies. There was a distinct lack of appropriately masculine tone to the whole book sure to alienate those orthodox Christians who still believe in a “manly Christianity” instead of the New-Age, gnostic, nihilist revision of Jesus. Overall, the theology reminds one of a limp-wristed, liberalized neo-deism with heavy doses of left-wing psychology. In all harshness, a most infelicitous theological scribbling by a liberal solipsist confusing his own mentality with that of normative Christianity. There is definite potential in this author if he outgrows the comfortable belief-systems of liberal-modernity he is still unconsciously enshackled to in his personality.
Addendum: Confusing one’s own ego with revelatory capacity is the fall of religion. This is a common symptom among today’s “post-modern” Christians—the insipid, bloodless psychological atmosphere of little boys self-complacently playing video games, little girls playing tea-party, or, the air of laid-back coffee-houses, rather than the harsh tragedian desert where Jesus taught a new revolutionary way of self-denial and self-sacrifice. A person can read a book and tell whether the author has tasted noble suffering or whether the author has led a modernist consumerist life of easy self-contentedness and egocentric domesticity; whether they use their intellect to play intellectual games or offer blood-bought truths, and nobly-endured suffering is the key to Christianity. The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity by Leon J. Podles comes highly recommended in this context.
Comments (107) »
1. Libby
January 7, 2009
9:05 AM
I’d say your reviewer has had too much of the ‘Mexican agriculture’!!
2. Jennifer
January 7, 2009
9:06 AM
I’m confused, too. Did the reviewer actually *read* your book? Maybe they were attempting to review something else and had too many windows open? :)
3. Jason
January 7, 2009
9:08 AM
that certainly is a lot of adjectives.
4. Eric
January 7, 2009
9:12 AM
I think if my little brother wrote a book I might write a review like that anonymously to be funny.
5. Stuart
January 7, 2009
9:13 AM
Hi Tim,
Other than sounding like a first-year philosophy paper in which the writer has found a whole new vocabulary and wants to test it out to show how smart he is, I don’t know what the point is either.
Your confusion seems warranted. Placing you in the ‘liberal’ category is strange. Very strange. And calling you a ‘solipsist’ is unfair. No matter how manly this person’s Christianity is, I think he could read your book with great profit: for did Jesus teach a revolutionary way of self-denial and self-sacrifice? I thought he revealed to us God the Father, and redeemed us for him, bringing us back to the original intent of the Law. This review seems much more liberal than any part of your book.
Keep up the good work, I enjoy reading your posts.
6. Nick
January 7, 2009
9:15 AM
“Other than sounding like a first-year philosophy paper in which the writer has found a whole new vocabulary and wants to test it out to show how smart he is, I don’t know what the point is either.”
My thoughts exactly!
7. David
January 7, 2009
9:18 AM
Inasmuch as I didn’t take that review seriously, it was a very enjoyable read.
It sounds like a loose-minded liberal who hasn’t himself settled into a worldview, trying to read your book from what he considers a fair, conservative position. But he’s unable to actually place himself there, so he just brings his ‘first-year’ language with him (I agree, Stuart).
Probably one of the better chuckles I’m going to have today, although it’s sad, because it reads like a person who is unhappy.
8. Charity
January 7, 2009
9:19 AM
Here’s my attempt at translation:
“The author attempts at transcending pseudointellectualism but is unable to discern what constitutes orthodox Christian spirituality and his own distorted, incomplete psychological development” = you don’t know what you are talking about and you sound silly.
“a distinct lack of appropriately masculine tone to the whole book”= you sound like a sissy.
“…scribbling by a liberal solipsist confusing his own mentality with that of normative Christianity” = you are imposing your ideology on the rest normal christendom.
The entire addendum can be summed up like this: THis is the problem with religion and its hurting our children. And then more mindless repetition of his same comments above.
I’m happy you posted this. I finally had an opportunity to put my Berkeley education to good use!
9. Laura
January 7, 2009
9:22 AM
Well, I tried to read it, but his pretentious self-congratulatory adjectivitis was suffocating.
It’s actually pretty funny as parody. There’s got to be a purple prose contest you can enter this in.
10. Eric T
January 7, 2009
9:22 AM
I have a hard time believing that he read the book; there’s really no reference to what it’s about. Not to mention that it reads like incomprehensible intellectual babble. “Off-putting androgyne tendencies?” Wow.
11. Jeremy Weaver
January 7, 2009
9:23 AM
Maybe he thought it was Les Parrot’s book with the same cover?
12. Eric S. Mueller
January 7, 2009
9:23 AM
Tim, I haven’t read your book, so I can’t comment on the accuracy or lack thereof of this review, but it almost sounds like it was written by some kind of Dilbert.com random book-review generator.
13. Rich Owen
January 7, 2009
9:24 AM
Perhpas he meant to review your book, AND someone elses (i can think of some that would fit that review), and in a moment of pure slapstick, entered the reivew the wrong way round. It happens all the time… oh wait…
14. James Kubecki
January 7, 2009
9:34 AM
This reminded me of either the Sokal affair, or something generated with SCIgen.
15. Matt
January 7, 2009
9:37 AM
Coming from someone named “Arktophylax,” I’m surprised to find the review so cryptic…
16. Philip D
January 7, 2009
9:39 AM
I have no idea what he said, but it must have been true with all of those big words…
17. Matt Kim
January 7, 2009
9:48 AM
Tim, I have not read your book but did check out some of Arktophylax’s other reviews. He is wildly infatuated with works on Hitler and in one review calls Nietzche one of the “heroes.” While it is always wise and humbling to receive wisdom through the harsh criticisms, I just don’t know if any part of this review is credible. If anyone wants an interesting read, check out this user’s other reviews on Amazon.
I would be honored though, Tim, because his review for your book warranted more “first-year philosophy” vocabulary than any of his other reviews!
18. Brendt Waters
January 7, 2009
9:52 AM
When I was in college (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) there was a VERY simple AI program that ran on our mainframe called Eliza. It was supposedly mimicking a psychologist — you’d type in something and it would respond. If there was a key word in what you typed, its question would riff off that. If not, it would say something like “How does that make you feel?”
This review reminds me a lot of Eliza.
19. Aaron
January 7, 2009
9:52 AM
He’s just angry because you quote John MacArthur. As we all know, MacArthur is history’s greatest monster.
Or am I thinking of David Caruso?
20. Gary
January 7, 2009
9:52 AM
I figured that someone gave him a Thesaurus for Christmas and he just couldn’t wait to try it out.
Now, what’s a synonym for addlepated?
21. Winston Waldemayer III
January 7, 2009
10:03 AM
Tim,
Ya know… sometimes people are just too arrogant for their own good and also too educated for their own good (or anyone else’s for that matter). All he/she is trying to prove is that they are better than you and that does not relate to the love of Christ.
It is essentially a selfish hate that causes one to be this way. The review is boisterous, degrading, pompous, arrogant, judmental and just quite frankly smells of hate. I won’t say who but someone obviously loves themselves way too much! lol! I wouldn’t pay this person much attention. All you can do is love them. Send them a response and make it really sappy! Ha!
http://www.reigningimmortal.com
22. David
January 7, 2009
10:06 AM
It means “I don’t like your book but have no idea how to refute it other than to so obfuscate what I’m saying in pyschobabble as to rend it impervious to rebuttal.”
In other words, your book contains truth.
23. Jason Harris
January 7, 2009
10:10 AM
Wow. That is indeed strange and quite humourous to boot!
24. Charlie Wallace
January 7, 2009
10:13 AM
sounds like he’s calling you a limp-wristed effeminate Christian who knows only what it’s like to dine at Starbucks and not suffer….
Oddly enough, that does describe many Christians, although I’m sure not you.
Unreal.
25. Jayson
January 7, 2009
10:17 AM
I think this Billy Madison quote is quite appropriate:
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!”
26. Matt
January 7, 2009
10:19 AM
I remember seeing an ultra-conservative website railing on John MacArthur for how he supposedly supports mainstream psychology. I’m guessing the reviewer has a nominally Christian, but very anti-psychology, view of life where life should always be harsh. It fits in with his liking of Nietzche.
Jesus also did not teach in the harsh desert, at least I don’t think he did. Israel was the land of milk and honey after all.
27. Jim Vellenga
January 7, 2009
10:21 AM
What!!!
Well, it was worth a chuckle. Since it didn’t interact with your book at all, but was purely hyperbolic obfuscation meant to sound like he/she actually knows something which instead shows a juvenile love of big words, I would pretty much discount it.
28. Jody
January 7, 2009
10:33 AM
Wow was my first reaction, since you’re not upset I will be upset for you! And perplexed. I’ve read your book, I don’t think he bothered, my thought while I was reading was that he wants to engage you in dialogue, which would be a huge waste of your time. I agree we all need constructive criticism, this wasn’t constructive. Press on brother.
29. Molly
January 7, 2009
10:39 AM
Back when I was in seminary, I stumbled across a website that would help you write a theology paper — it was like a mad gab where you wrote in adjectives and nouns, and they filled it in to write a paper. This totally sounds like the same thing — a random word generator that then somehow got posted as a review!
30. jessica mell
January 7, 2009
10:51 AM
What a delphic response.
And ultimately one that reveals itself as unloving—even if his assessment was true, how would his words Help you, or those who might read the book?
As one who owns but hasn’t yet read ‘The Discipline of Spritual Discernment’, I appreciate Matt Kim’s investigation/description of that fellow’s other reviews and tastes. Helps to give some context.
31. Justificationated_2385
January 7, 2009
10:55 AM
I think we should all pray for him by name and trust that our sovereign God has a list of all our pseudonyms.
32. Matt T.
January 7, 2009
11:06 AM
Oh the irony…
“Addendum: Confusing one’s own ego with revelatory capacity is the fall of religion.”
33. Barbara
January 7, 2009
11:09 AM
Tim, this can only mean that you’ve reached a point in your career where you’re going to need staff to filter your press clippings and keep the needlessly troubling stuff away from your eyes. :)
Keep your focus. We’ll pray for this person.
34. Jessica Grace
January 7, 2009
11:22 AM
Outside of the fact that it sounds like he reviewed a different book altogether, I do believe he is a convoluted, fledgling philosopher who thrives on deprecating the views of others and whose deluded observations should be altogether overlooked.
lol OK. I’m not good at this. On another note, I’m about halfway through your book and am enjoying it.
35. Dan Sudfeld
January 7, 2009
11:30 AM
I have no idea what he/she said, but I’m against it. :-)
36. Rita Martinez
January 7, 2009
11:34 AM
well I have yet to read your book Mr. Challies but I doubt any of what that reviewer said is accurate, my thoughts are he was trying to review someone else and made a mistake..
37. Ben Mordecai
January 7, 2009
11:38 AM
Opinion + Thesaurus = Really Weird Review
38. Celt
January 7, 2009
11:41 AM
A schizophrenic, but an intelligent, somewhat well-read schizophrenic. Reminds me of the Russell Crowe movie.
39. ally
January 7, 2009
11:42 AM
That made my head hurt. And I only read the first few sentences.
40. Jim Brown
January 7, 2009
11:45 AM
I was planning on buying your book but now…
I only made it through a small part of the, umm, ‘review’ and I stopped and thought. “I’ve got to order Tim’s book today!”
The reviewers style was reminded me of the late 60s british pop magazine reviews, where they would sling confusing insults at everything making themselves appear more, intelligent?
41. Tom Chantry
January 7, 2009
11:55 AM
Two Words: Eschew Obfuscation!
42. Mary Eady
January 7, 2009
12:03 PM
it’s a little like someone at Westboro Baptist got hold of a thesaurus and a copy of your book and this was then ending result…haha is that random? it’s just what popped into my head.
well, thanks for the good read, Tim. i was planning on getting your book soon and now i have even MORE incentive to do so! ;) sent this along to a co-worker who i thought would enjoy it.
i wish we did know if he HAD read the book. i’d love to know what the answer was.
43. Walter
January 7, 2009
12:11 PM
Sounds like a cornucopia of irrelevancies
44. Mary Eady
January 7, 2009
12:12 PM
Ah, I see Ben had a similar thought to mine and I didn’t see it the first time through — hmm…Great minds think alike?
By the way, speaking of reviews, was listening to a podcast of Mark Driscoll the other day and he highly, highly recommended your book in the audio.
Sorry for the double posting!
45. Martin
January 7, 2009
12:14 PM
His statements are so confusing, I have no idea how one might turn them toward a Gospel conversation. How about, “Thanks for those obtuse comments; so what do you believe about Jesus?”
46. Martin
January 7, 2009
12:26 PM
His statements are so confusing, I have no idea how one might turn them toward a Gospel conversation. How about, “Thanks for those obtuse comments; so what do you believe about Jesus?”
47. John Meche
January 7, 2009
12:29 PM
Maybe it’s spam.
48. Allen W. Jerkins
January 7, 2009
12:49 PM
I haven’t read the book…but man, what a review! I feel tempted now to try and prove that I too am Real Smart.
49. Tami
January 7, 2009
12:50 PM
I’m with others who think this was pasted under the wrong book…
Either that, or he was auditioning as a writer for the music website, pitchforkmedia :)
50. Ashley
January 7, 2009
1:00 PM
Wow…
And recommending “The Church Impotent” at the end??
I have read that book. I have read your book. And I understood all the words he used without looking them up. And I’m completely flummoxed.
I agree with the others - ignore this in light of his other reviews and the likely chance that he meant to post it for another book. And pray for the boy.
51. J.P.H.
January 7, 2009
1:02 PM
I think he’s mocking you. Or, more generally, orthodox Christians. Basically, his review is a caricature of the ones you write when you review books.
52. Daniel Threlfall
January 7, 2009
1:06 PM
To either confuse or clarify, here is his review list:
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A386GA5DLKBVIB/ref=cm_pdp_reviews_see_all/190-0503925-3223011?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview
53. J.P.H.
January 7, 2009
1:07 PM
Alternately, he may be trolling. Check out his other three reviews. They’re all written in the same style, and with some of the same themes. Some people find it amusing to write a bunch of unintelligible gibberish then watch people take it seriously.
54. sarah
January 7, 2009
1:21 PM
Wow. that was hard to read. I’m surprised he gave you ONE star!
55. Christine
January 7, 2009
1:41 PM
Wow. I have read your book. After reading that review I can’t imagine he and I read the same thing. My first thought was that this guy had a list of $64 words and he had to see how many of them he could use in one paragraph. Here’s where he lost me - “There was a distinct lack of appropriately masculine tone to the whole book sure to alienate those orthodox Christians who still believe in a “manly Christianity” instead of the New-Age, gnostic, nihilist revision of Jesus”.
Even assuming that your book is lacking in tone as he claims it is (?!), he makes it sound as if the alternative is what mainstream Christianity is comprised of. Anyone who uses terms like “New-Age” and “nihilist” to describe mainstream Christianity has no idea what they’re talking about.
The first tip off to me was his posting name. It looked Greek to me and a quick Google search revealed that Arktophylax is alternatively the son of Zeus and Kallisto or the the brightest star in the constellation named for him. So this person is either an expert on astrology or Greek mythic religion. Or both. Either way, I don’t see him as someone with any real insight into the process of Christian discernment. You on the other hand, have it in spades.
56. Jeri
January 7, 2009
1:53 PM
Somebody may have already said this but it may be possible he posted his review to the wrong book. In any case, I seriously doubt he read yours!
It’s a shame though, that it will reduce the number of highlighted star-thingys for your book. Is there any recourse to Amazon for that kind of spurious rating?
57. Daniel
January 7, 2009
2:40 PM
TIM: I think this fellow is a member of the Orthodox Church proper, as opposed to a Reformed (or otherwise) Protestant; hence his remarks concerning your inability to discern what constitutes (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity, should be taken in that context.
I note that you do not boast a beard that reaches your waist, and that your philosophy really is westernized (Protestant-o-centric), so when he (basically) calls you a pansy who doesn’t get out much he is just saying you write from a very myopic perspective about a thing that really transcends your denomination. Pointing this out does not suggest that I share his view btw.
I was tickled by each patronizing chain of flowery adjectives. If he doesn’t still live with his mommy, he sure hides it well. ;)
58. Stephen Newell
January 7, 2009
3:02 PM
I “know” this guy. I had to ban him from commenting on my blog for the same critical, unreasonable, personally attacking remarks, right down to the “limp-wristed” remarks. I wouldn’t worry too much about him - he’s obviously had a little too much to drink, theologically speaking. He seems to be like these mysterious “hyper-Calvinists” we keep hearing about, though I doubt he’s a Calvinist himself.
59. phil
January 7, 2009
4:06 PM
??????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????? ????????
? ???????????????? ?????????????
These are just my thoughts.
-Phil
60. Rachael Starke
January 7, 2009
4:20 PM
I think he’s either forgotten to take his medication, or hasn’t yet been made to understand that he’s one of those unfortunate folks who needs some.
And I’m with Barbara - I think this means you’re officially famous, and possibly even cool.
Congratulations!!
61. Joanna
January 7, 2009
4:31 PM
Wow, i think someone has spent way too long in their theology and sociology dictionaries and not enough time reading the actual book!
62. Kathy
January 7, 2009
4:44 PM
Tim,
I think you definitely tend toward the opposite. I can’t imagine anyone thinking this of you. You seem to swim in the most conservative circle. I wonder who the author is. If he was truly commenting on your book he must be a lonely fellow.
You are very much like Todd Friel if anything erring on the side of being too cerebral and not touchy feely enough. The review was definitely fun to read and puzzle through.
God Bless.
63. Hunter Baker
January 7, 2009
5:35 PM
I’m not at all confident this was a serious review. To me, it sounds like funny, semi-boilerplate prose designed to baffle and amaze. It is the sort of thing one would submit to an academic review in an attempt to lure them into accepting something nonsensical.
64. Tim Irvin
January 7, 2009
5:44 PM
LOL …. ROFL …. Thanks, that was great.
I didn’t really understand it all, I don’t have my dictionary handy at the moment.
He may have gotten one point right:
“…the author has led a modernist consumerist life…”
I only say that because I’m jealous of your new MAC! Other than that I’d say the reviewer is one brick shy of a load.
65. John from Down Under
January 7, 2009
6:03 PM
Tim thanks for spicing up your blog with some entertainment!
My first thought was ‘did he escape or did they let him out?’ In case he gets to read these posts I would respond in kind and call him an exhibitionistic sophist with compulsively epithetical proclivities, manifested in inextricably labyrinthine rhetoric, impelled by subconscious gynophobia. [Translation: a show-off who loves the sound of his own voice and looks down on women]
I wonder if he can order his coffee in plain English. He’s probably the type that would say “I have a strong intuitive awareness that the excretory matter evacuated from the bowels is about to collide with the rotary blades”
Indulge me some interesting trivia that is self-revelatory. I’m a bilingual Greek-born Australian and apart from the mythical origins of Arktophylax that Christine pointed out on #55 post, the name is a compound word that literally translates as ‘bear keeper’ (arktos means ‘bear’ in Greek and phylax means ‘keeper / protector’) Maybe he works in a zoo??
On a more serious note, this crop of ‘manly Christianity’ is a Driscoll-Eldridge mixture idealizing a Herculean Jesus and interpreting sensitivity, meekness and kindness as sissyness. The ‘ideal’ Christian male is full of testosterone, has stubble and a hairy chest with an long scar across his face and maybe a missing tooth, and has watched ‘The Gladiator’ and ‘300’ probably 50 times.
66. deborah
January 7, 2009
6:13 PM
This is a troll at work. And by the way, I did read your book and it is excellent.
67. Nick Coller
January 7, 2009
6:20 PM
Let me just say, Tim, you’re lucky I’ve already “bought” (Ok, so you gave it to me) and read your book, because if I’d read this review beforehand, I’d definitely be buying “The Church Impotent” instead!
Nah, I jest. Personally, I love your infelicitous theological scribbling, you cute little liberal solipsist you!
68. Dan
January 7, 2009
6:26 PM
I’m sorry Tim, I am still laughing. I’ll have to get my dictionary out to try to offer any constructive interpretive help!
Still laughing.
69. Tim Ashcraft
January 7, 2009
6:39 PM
The reviewer sounds like a shoe-in to win this year’s Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest.
70. Celt
January 7, 2009
6:43 PM
Could this have anything to do with your rather blisteringly negative review of Eldridge’s way of the wild heart?
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000TG2FZS?pageNumber=3
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/the-way-of-the.php
Is Arktophylax a secret agent for Eldridge and his “christian-masculinist” gang?
71. Victoria
January 7, 2009
6:48 PM
Tim, really, he’s got the wrong book.
72. Aemrie
January 7, 2009
7:22 PM
based on “Arktophylax“‘s other reviews, he doesnt seem like a troll, but probably an emotionally angsty young adult with deep internal mental divisions (and hints of schizoid personality) with aspirations of being a philosopher, coming from a basically conservative-traditionalist-Christian background but open to pernicious contemporary influences (like “animal rights”, Guenon’s and Evola’s gnosticism). i am guessing he is a young college student, very mentally and intellectually confused, but at least more advanced than most of his postmodernist peers of the MTV-Girls Gone Wild degenerate generation.
as to Arktos’ motivation for the review, i have no idea. ironic self-parody or Lovecraftian psychological warfare?
73. Dwight Watson
January 7, 2009
7:56 PM
The reviewer’s use of the term “liberal solipsist” to describe Tim Challies leads me to one of two conclusions: he has no idea what the term solipsist means (the view or theory that the “self” is all that can be known to exist), or he didn’t bother read much more than the back cover of the book. If anything, this book is the antithesis of solipsism, constantly warning of the limitations of human knowledge and understanding and pointing the reader to find Truth in Scripture.
Reminds me of the words of Inigo Montoya in “The Princess Bride”: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
74. bchallies
January 7, 2009
8:13 PM
???????!!!!!!!!!!! Good grief!
75. Jody
January 7, 2009
8:26 PM
Been watching this post all day, kids had a snow/ice day, so I’ve been at my computer a lot today. Anyway, I think a nerve was hit. You’ve got a lot of fans!! God bless.
76. Tom
January 7, 2009
9:12 PM
HUH?!!!
Today’s date is not April 1, is it?
77. Gale Ebie
January 7, 2009
9:21 PM
Tim, I am reading your book, and in Chapter 6 today on page 110 I quote you: “Christians absorb many words and phrases and ways of speaking without fully understanding what they mean”. But this guy takes that to an extreme!
78. david
January 7, 2009
9:58 PM
this dude probably knows a fancier word for “thesaurus”.
79. Jim Swindle
January 7, 2009
10:27 PM
Three thoughts…
1. I read your book. It’s very, very good.
2. The review is hilarious.
3. We should, though, pray for the person who wrote it. He/she may have intended it seriously, and he/she is valuable to the Lord. Jesus died for sinners like him/her and like me.
80. Trill
January 7, 2009
10:33 PM
I think I’ve enjoyed these comments more than anything! So funny! At least I understood them. Tim I think i agree with Barbara way up at the top- you might need an admin assistant! Glad you can take it so well- humble
81. Pamela
January 8, 2009
12:27 AM
You know, there is a gentleman on xanga that writes exactly like that and tears thru anyone’s post that catches his eye. Let me know if you want me to look it up and pass it on.
Now I want to read your book. :)
82. beatrice81
January 8, 2009
1:06 AM
I think it’s interesting how many self-described ‘manly Christians’ are so insecure about their gender and sexuality.
83. ginger
January 8, 2009
4:48 AM
I thought perhaps this this was a joke & scrolled back up to the beginning of your post to see if I had missed something. (c: Who even thinks with a vocabulary like that?
84. Kenneth Ross
January 8, 2009
5:24 AM
I’ll unmask Arktophylax…..
His real name is Eugene Meltsner. I used to hear him on the radio all the time (well, at least when the kids were in the car!) Lived in a place called Odyssey. (visited it once - on the north edge of Colorado Springs).
And if you haven’t a clue what I’m talking about, then you haven’t yet endured enough ‘Adventures in Odyssey’ (I always looked on it as a means of grace).
85. Daniel
January 8, 2009
5:54 AM
Someone forgot to take his pills for schizophrenia and is now attempting to pass himself off as a literary critic under the inflated name of “Arktophylax”.
Remedy: Take all criticisms with a grain of salt and sit back and chuckle a bit and then realize this person ISN’T anything more than a bag of big words NOONE can understand.
Ps… I second the Billy Madison quote.
Keep your hand to the plow and your eyes forward, you’ll reap if you faint not…..
86. Tammy Gruebbel
January 8, 2009
8:06 AM
What an enjoyable read—I’m talking about these posted comments, of course! You have many people who truly care about you, Tim.
Proverbs 27:9 - “Oil and perfume make the heart glad, and the sweetness of a friend comes from his earnest counsel.”
I agree with what Jeri posted above—don’t want too many false “star-thingys” on your book. I went ahead and purchased one so I can give a more accurate review.
Hey Tim, isn’t it amazing the see the love of Christ in action? All you have to do is read these comments to understand how I have thoroughly enjoyed reading every comment, grasping of just how many people truly care about you.
87. Tammy Gruebbel
January 8, 2009
8:09 AM
Ooops—forgot to delete that last paragraph! :)
88. Rick
January 8, 2009
9:12 AM
Upon reading that review, my knee jerk reaction was: Did the reviewer copy and paste his review for the wrong book? I was thinking that surely he has another book from Amazon in mind when he was preparing the review and pasted into yours by accident.
Oh well; take heart, brother - your writing ways are solid gold.
89. Curtis
January 8, 2009
9:15 AM
I thought his arguments were consise and to the point. He brings up many important issues that should be looked at more thoroughly and with great consideration. Obviously he has done some comparative reading and reseach regarding this topic as he structures his criticism well.
???What were we talking about again…???
JK Tim, I know enough about your theology from your blog to know this review, as convoluted as it is, is just outright wrong. Even though I have not read your book, it would appear neither has he. I really should get your book, but right now I have at least 500 others on my shelves to get through.
Love you brother, keep declaring the truth.
90. Mike
January 8, 2009
10:05 AM
I find it funny that he used the term pseudo-intellectual while at the same time he tries to beat the reader over the head with overly complex words that really don’t give and context or example of what he is talking about.
Perhaps Tim needs to go out and kill a lion with his bare hands to satisfied this guys requirements of manliness.
91. Randy Hurst
January 8, 2009
10:55 AM
I read through the all the comments just to see how many people noted a familiarity with the symptoms of schizophrenia. To give this review any credibility is to encourage incoherent life without meds. In sharp contrast to our acquaintances within “Christian” Science, dopamine controlling antipsychotic drugs would do more for this critique (and others like it) than all the prayer and/or mockery that we can muster. We all should be more careful in how we handle these kinds of dissociative rants; laughing at them, even as intellectual banter, is closely akin to making fun of a handicapped person.
92. David Thommen
January 8, 2009
11:46 AM
Not much of a book review since he didn’t interact with the book. Nonetheless a formidable adversary in Scrabble.
93. Daniel
January 8, 2009
1:19 PM
Let me be perfectly clear as to the post of Randy Hurst.
When I initially read Tim’s post. I took it as a plea for clarity.
Tim asking,”Hey folk’s am I missing something here or what?”, regarding the rantings of Arktophylax.
I read his ridiculous book review and came to two conclusions which I think most everyone else arrived as well.
1) Tim wrote a book to further strengthen and encourage the body of Christ and to promote a deeper understanding of spiritual discernment. He also did so, I believe, because of his gifts and callings and his obedience to Christ.
2) The writings of Arktophylax appear to be, at face value, (without any additional evidence) the work of a inflated ego of one individual writing a mean spirited review.
I do not have the luxury of have any other evidence to the contrary. Yes, is is plausable he could have posted incorrectly and all other further posts are a moot point.
Yes, it is also plausable he could be truly crazy.
However until we get further evidence that this is indeed the work of a true crazy person.
I’ve always been under the assumtion we are all accountable for our thoughts, words and deeds and if you post it … you own it.
Until I have more concrete evidence that Mr Arktophylax is crazy. Like his Dr. posting, “Yes, indeed, my patient is crazy”, I will assume that Mr Arktophylax is furthering his ego at the expense of the author and creator of this blog.
Which by the way, has blessed countless of brothers and sisters around the world. For that we ALL are better off.
Furthermore, I would NEVER belittle handicapped individuals either mental or otherwise. I further believe it was NEVER the intention of others to do so either. I clearly understood the mild humor of each posted comment.
Sorry if it was assumed that I or anyone else would do that.
I clearly understood the mild humor each posted comment and enjoyed each one, all of which I felt was in the spirit of love and encouragement for Tim.
When It comes right down to it, I am standing up and throwing my hat into the Ring for Tim.
Yes, I am giving Tim the benefit of the doubt and yes it’s true,
I am incouraging him to “Press on for the sake of the Gospel”.
I just didn’t see it any other way and until we truly unmask Mr
Arktophylax I didn’t see any wrong doing in my actions, nor did I think Mr Arktophylax deserved more of the benefit for his post.
I thought a brother in Christ deserved our support more, and that’s where I stand.
My original post of Mr Arktophylax of being schizophrenia was to be taking with a chuckle and a grain of truth as was other postings to that effect.
In His Love,
Daniel Sanders
94. Demian Farnworth
January 8, 2009
1:35 PM
I always thought that about you. Just kidding. Ignore it. Like one of the commentors said, somebody probably gave him a Thesaurus for Christmas.
95. Daniel
January 8, 2009
1:44 PM
Ooops—
last sentence that read
My original post of Mr Arktophylax of being schizophrenia was to be taking with a chuckle and a grain of truth as was other postings to that effect.
SHOULD HAVE READ -
My original post of Mr Arktophylax of being schizophrenia was to be TAKEN with a chuckle and a grain of SALT, as was others posting to that effect.
just trying to be clear here folks !!!
Peace,
Daniel Sanders
96. Laurie
January 8, 2009
4:51 PM
I think he’s calling you girlie. hee hee.
97. Tom Hardy
January 8, 2009
8:26 PM
Tim
To be honest I have not read your book. However, (Other than the fact that the reviewer seemed like he was trying to speak on a plain higher than most people) as I read the review I could not help but think based on what I know about you, the critique made you sound like a “liberal”, which is the opposite of what I understand about you.
I have never heard of a Reformed author being called a “liberal” before.
Although to be honest your book was not on my priority list, because I have too many books on my book shelf already. That review, made me think that maybe I should make your book more of a priority.
98. Brian
January 9, 2009
11:46 AM
Simply explained.
An example of undisciplined anti-discernment.
He is simply trying to help people understand why they have to read Tim’s book - which I have - and recommend highly - though with less convolution and more genuine appreciation
99. Rose Mawhorter
January 9, 2009
5:04 PM
My thought is “blessed are you when people hate you… revile you and spurn your name as evil on account of the Son of Man… for so their father’s did to the prophets.” You can’t expect everyone to love you if you’re in the will of God. You clearly have about 100 people that do though :)
100. rick
January 9, 2009
10:23 PM
I think it was written by that guy, Rob ??? Who used to own Discerning Reader.
101. SandieMcF
January 10, 2009
11:01 AM
I agree with Gary - reviewer got an electronic thesaurus for Christmas - suppose he even celebrates ? I mean other than with his Mexican produce and a few bottles of similar, with limes. What a waste of some beautiful words - if it were re-written in language meant to be read it woul probably take all of 2 or 3 sentences ” Dude, gots no idee wacha said . so ai’m shur ah don lak it.’ Okay - 1 sentence.
102. kschaub
January 10, 2009
11:56 AM
Challies, a self-congratulatory conformist liberalist?! LOL! Say it ain’t so!
103. Cheri
January 11, 2009
6:29 AM
I actually read the review a week ago before purchasing your book. Which I plan to begin this week! After reading the review, was exhausted with all the words about nothing, moved on to the other reviews. Thought he was long winded, forgot the main idea after using “big” words from the Thesaurus. Have no concern, it looked like an angry guy to me.
This summed it up the best “I figured that someone gave him a Thesaurus for Christmas and he just couldn’t wait to try it out.”
104. Cheri
January 11, 2009
7:00 AM
posted too soon, went to amazon and read the comments to his review, clearly posted on wrong book, now it makes sense!
105. Lisa Nunley
January 11, 2009
4:13 PM
Thanks for the headache girlie-friend… I mean Tim.
106. Tom Hardy
January 11, 2009
5:25 PM
Anybody notice that this guy just made accusations against Tim, but didn’t give any evidence?
107. winnie
January 11, 2009
5:49 PM
You know, it is just like that in the blog-world. Maybe you irritated someone by expressing your opinion.
So now, it is my turn, again.
Been truly struggling with the shack, and the dear folk that have bought into it hook, line and sinker. This is not just an academic discussion, I believe a lot of people are confused by this. The theological problems are mind boggling, but maybe, for some reason, not obvious.
I think the problem may lie even deeper than the theological struggles….underneath may lie a psychological drama. The main character seems to be going through a psychic metamorphis (SP) of sorts….
Mac has a cruel father. Mac, as a child runs away from home after poisoning his fathers liquor bottles, and finds a wife that has more mother-like qualities than spouse qualities…he comes to the shack with anger towards a Father God who has allowed the horrific death of his child…he is greeted by a motherly figure called Papa, in place of the “traditional” father God…the mother, as his wife has, can communicate with Mac, Mac hears his own thoughts, and they are comforting….in the end the mother is replaced with a middle aged man (Mac himself) and the oepidal complex is complete. He has replaced his earthly father (killing him and marrying a mother figure) and then replaces his Heavenly father (with a mother figure, then himself). The cycle is complete, the complex remains.
If this were not a cycle that involved the God of the universe, we could brush it off….but it does.
Am I just a crazy lady? I am starting to doubt my ability to reason. Too long on the shack book website.