- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (1/7)
- Next Post »A La Carte (1/8)
Horrible Self-Congratulatory Conformist Liberalism
- 01/07/09
- 107
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.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (107)
I’d say your reviewer has had too much of the ‘Mexican agriculture’!!
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? :)
that certainly is a lot of adjectives.
I think if my little brother wrote a book I might write a review like that anonymously to be funny.
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.
“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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
Maybe he thought it was Les Parrot’s book with the same cover?
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.
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…
This reminded me of either the Sokal affair, or something generated with SCIgen.
Coming from someone named “Arktophylax,” I’m surprised to find the review so cryptic…
I have no idea what he said, but it must have been true with all of those big words…
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!
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
Wow. That is indeed strange and quite humourous to boot!
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I think we should all pray for him by name and trust that our sovereign God has a list of all our pseudonyms.
Oh the irony…
“Addendum: Confusing one’s own ego with revelatory capacity is the fall of religion.”
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.
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.
I have no idea what he/she said, but I’m against it. :-)
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..
Opinion + Thesaurus = Really Weird Review
A schizophrenic, but an intelligent, somewhat well-read schizophrenic. Reminds me of the Russell Crowe movie.
That made my head hurt. And I only read the first few sentences.
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?
Two Words: Eschew Obfuscation!
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.
Sounds like a cornucopia of irrelevancies
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!
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?”
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?”
Maybe it’s spam.
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.
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 :)
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.